Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation/Archive 1

Occidental College and Article Title
Barack Obama attended Occidental College, which is not currently listed. More importantly, however, is that it calls into question the title of this article, which is "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation." Should this be changed due to the inclusion of schools which are colleges and not universities?

aigiqinf (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

University of Chicago, Columbia University, University of Cambridge
According to the official University of Cambridge count, the University has had 82 Nobel laureates since 1904. (http://web.archive.org/web/20080213151522/http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/nobelprize.html)

According to the official Columbia University count, the University has had 79 Nobel laureates as of today. (http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/university/academic/faculty.php)

According to the official University of Chicago count, the University has had 85 Nobel laureates as of today. (http://www.uchicago.edu/about/index.shtml)

I would expect everyone to support his or her claims with concrete evidence. 99.112.126.151 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for official count is inconsistent among schools. To maintain consistency and comparability of counts, a consensus was reached as a result of discussion on this page to use actual count criteria for this page. Please refer to discussion titled "Official count versus actual count -- INCONSISTENT".--98.14.213.233 (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me. Discussions between two individuals do not constitute 'consensus'. Please follow the official counts. 128.135.67.41 (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Karolinska Institute
Why isnt the Karolinska Institute i Stockholm listed? It's both the institution that hands out the Medicine Prize and the Swedish University with the most laureates produced... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chumpcheng (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Northwestern
northwestern university in evanston illinois has many nobel peace prize winners should probably be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.74.89.211 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * added a few. do you know of any more? Deen Gu (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Queen Mary, University of London
Has six noble prize winners in total including Charles Kao but has been listed as having three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boredomia (talk • contribs) 08:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

University of Paris
I think we should not be including winners after the school officially disorganized. There should be a note that it is a historical institution that is no longer in existance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.125.145 (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

General note to all visitors
The issues of comparability, completeness and affiliation have been raised.

Comparability
This list serves the purpose of creating transparency. There are several other lists with regard to "university affiliation" on the web but most of them do not indicate the type of affiliation. Often, these lists suggest fame and success of an institution although the affiliations are quite irrelevant. Since this list indicates the type of affiliation, the reader of this article is empowered to create his or her own picture of the myths and lore around certain universities. If some universities do not count affiliates or attendees among "their" nobelists, the ranking is impaired somewhat. But feel free to add as many as you can find.

-

Excellent quotation!, that's exactly what I meant. It's pretty funny, but some elite colleges have deleted this article from their "See also section". It's pretty nice to look clearly which university has a nobel profile. Nobody believes that Duke has only 3 Nobel.

Current List Misleading as it Does not Take into Account Nobel Prize Fractions
Unfortunately, none of Wikipedia's Nobel laureate lists is taking into account that not all Nobel laureates are of equal importance. Some obviously had much more impact than others. Wikipedia ought to report how the Nobel committee expresses its own view of the value of individual contributions by awarding fractional prizes. The official Nobel web site explicitly says for each laureate X how much of a Nobel Prize X really got, for example, "1/4 of the prize" or "1/2 of the prize" or "1/3 of the prize" etc. If X got less than 1.0 Nobel Prizes X is still a Nobel laureate, of course, but it's also clear that X could have done better. Everybody in the field, and especially the laureates themselves, are fully aware of the significance of these fractional prizes. Suppose the physics prize goes to 3 researchers, one of them gets 1/2, the others 1/4 each - it's absolutely clear whose contribution was larger in the eyes of the committee.

I think all Wikipedia Nobel Prize lists must be augmented by this crucial information. This will also put in perspective the recent inflation of Nobel laureates in the sciences, which is easy to explain: most of the recent laureates had to share the prize while most of the early laureates got a full prize. The lists of laureates by university or by country must take this into account as well. For example, Glauber (US), Hall (US) and Hänsch (Germany) shared the physics prize of 2005. But we cannot simply add 2.00 points to the US count and 1.0 to the German count. Instead we have to add 0.75 to the US count and 0.25 to the German count (Hänsch and Hall each got only 0.25 of the prize, Glauber got 0.5). Otherwise we'd violate the Nobel Prize conservation law: The sum of the Nobel Prizes per year is constant; you may divide it among many laureates, but then the laureates necessarily become less outstanding on average. Science History 15:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Completeness
Several authors have added further nobel prize winners but it`s a time consuming endeavour. If "your" university is not listed, please dont`t complain but help to change it. As to the issue of double counts: we can`t solve it. It is suggested that any double count within a university is indicated by an asterisk so that a double count within an institution is avoided. If a laureate has been affiliated with several institutions (see example of Eric Kandel below), let all institutions share the fame.

Current List is Misleading as it Treats the Bank of Sweden Prize like a Real Nobel Prize
Many do not consider the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel as a real Nobel Prize, but the present list does not seem to care. The University of Chicago seems to profit most from this questionable view. Science History 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

Reply: However, the prize is commonly regarded as Nobel Prize and is awarded by the same principles. If you like, indicate all Bank of Sweden Prizes in the list by using an indicator.


 * well since the nobel website lists the "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" under "nobel prizes", we should include it. but at least a few have started color coding the prizes to distinguish the different awards. Deen Gu (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Affiliation
Several authors have raised the issue of affiliation status. As indicated in the beginning remarks of the article, there is no other way than to take into account any affiliation whatsoever. Any differenciation or categorization of affiliation type will raise unsolvable problems. There is - in my view - no way to create a reasonable way of differentiation. The "most advanced degree criterion" doesn`t work (it would hurt Cornell and Harvard I guess) and the "affiliation at time of award" criterion would disregard the work of the nobelist before the award - although this might be far more relevant to the academic progress of the honoree. Therefore, to avoid any fruitless discussion, please adopt the broadest standards possible. If these broad standards are followed, any university has the chance to be equally represented. The readers of the article will certainly understand the differences.

Remarks
There is an ambiguity here which you may not have realized. A professor who is on the faculty of a given university *when* he receives the prize qualifies as both "on faculty before award" and "on faculty after award". Different editors and users may interpret these columns differently, so that one laureate will end up listed in the "before" column at his institution but another will go in the "after" column. It might make more sense (and more work, unfortunately) to have a column for those who left a faculty before winning an award, another for those on the faculty at the time of the award and another for those who joined later.

Another problem is that it seems each laureate is only listed once per institution even though many laureates belong in multiple columns for the same school. To take one example, Eric Kandel (Medicine 2000) earned his B.A. from Harvard and his M.D. from NYU; he then returned to Harvard as a junior faculty member and later left Harvard and returned to NYU as a professor before moving to Columbia permanently in 1974. He thus belongs in two columns for Harvard and two for NYU but is only listed once for each. A more complicated entry (which isn't in place yet) will be Melvin Schwartz (Physics 1988), who earned his B.A. and Ph.D. from Columbia and then joined the faculty, but left before winning his Nobel only to return later. He will belong in three columns for Columbia and, under the current format, it will be hard to tell that he was elsewhere when he won his prize. I realize your ground rules say each laureate is to be counted once, but this makes the table much less useful -- someone who wants to see whether more laureates graduated from Caltech or Yale cannot presume that the list of each school's graduates is complete.

Your willingness to count visiting and adjunct professors along with full-timers is admirable, but most of the top schools on your list don't count these folks in their totals or include them in their official lists. I know, for example, that Columbia's count in physics alone would increase by five if visitors were included in its litst. If other schools do count these folks your table is still comparing apples and oranges.

There are some individual errors here (for example, Enrico Fermi and Harold Urey are both in the "before" column at Chicago but belong in the "after" column instead, while Linda Buck is in the "after" column at Harvard where she should be listed as "before"); I have no time to make corrections at the moment but will return to help edit this page later.

PS: May be a uniform way to count this, is to apply each nobel laurete to the university where he/she earned the most Advanced degree. This will simplify the methodology and will allow them to be counted just once. Another way is to use the First degree but since we are talking about Nobels that is overtly simplistic

Reply: you`re right, its complicated and there`s almost no easy way to count all the laureates. This is just an estimate. The affiliation problem (laureates leaving etc.) doesn´t really exist since the laureates are only counted once.

Remarks

 * This article is a lot of work and needs some time. The imbalance is not on purpose. But it takes a while to incorporate the 70+ chicago, berkley and other alumni into the database. I hope other users will participate. Assuming that every nobel laureate is affiliated to at least three universities (2 degrees and at least 1 teaching assignment), we`re talking about 2100 names that need to be copied and pasted. We all know what exactly needs to be done. So please don`t complain and give working assignments - participate !!!!


 * I`ve added some more universities, I believe it`s appropriate to remove the caveat now. But please, there`s a lot of work to do - please join me.
 * Might I suggest that the alphabetization be relaxed in favor of the year of the Nobel award. The reason? The Nobel Laureates tend to get listed on the University pages in order of the year of their award. Then it becomes a simple copy and paste to add names to the tables. Another formatting idea might be to relax the formatting to allow Laureates to be on a single line. Thus a Nobel Laureate who was gone to some school, then become professor at that same school can be on the same line. Albert Einstein and Ralph Bunche are examples of this case. A side benefit of this format might be that a professor who was thought to have been on the faculty before the Nobel award, but who really was taken on the faculty after the Nobel prize, can simply be slid over a column. The Search function of the browser can substitute for alphabetization, which then simplifies layout problems. --Ancheta Wis 16:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Alas this entire page is inane, fatuous, and stupid. It makes no sense to compare different universities when the Nobel laureates associated with each university are not selected based on the same criteria. But of course they are not. For example, the University of Chicago list was created without any criteria at all. Thus it is easy to point out sins of commission (e.g. Julian Schwinger is on the list although he spent only 2 months in residence in Chicago in the summer of 1944, not on the faculty but working on reactor theory for the Manhattan Project, with virtually no contact with any faculty members) and of omission (e.g. Alexander Todd was a Visiting Professor in the Fall of 1948; Max Born was visiting faculty in the Summer of 1912; neither is on the Chicago list though there are many on the list with less connection.) I don't know the degree to which other universities have determined criteria for inclusion and stuck to them, but I very much doubt that many have either picked criteria or applied them consistently -- and in any case every school picks its own criteria. Of course in addition the Nobel Prize is blown out of proportion as an indicator of scientific quality, but that is a matter for another rant.Bob66 20:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Kissinger started college at CCNY but transfered to Harvard before graduating. I have no problem with him being counted as a CCNY figure, and if he is included in the list then so should be Julian Schwinger (Physics 1965) who started at CCNY and then transferred to Columbia.

LA Times University Nobel list dated October 10 2005
For comparison, here is the Los Angeles Times' list of Nobel prize winners claimed by universities.

It is from an article entitled "A Nobel Prize for Creativity", which is about the expansive ways universities try to claim Nobels. the article is here but I don't know how stable that link is. Notably, the Harvard and Berkley counts are much lower (those universities apparently less expansive in their claims then Chicago). In a strict count which avoids short-term research visits and the like, Cambridge would still be the highest and by a greater margin, given that 70 of their Nobels were undergrad or grad students.

LA TIMES LIST:

The universities claiming the largest number of Nobel Prizes*

1. Cambridge University, England: 81

2. University of Chicago: 78

3. Columbia University: 73

4. MIT: 60

5. Oxford University, England: 47

6. Harvard University: 42

7. Caltech: 32

8. Johns Hopkins University: 31

9. Cornell University: 30

10. Princeton: 29

Saul Bellow
didn't graduate from Univ. of Chicago. He graduated from Northwestern, who need a presence on the list since they have 2 on faculty, Bellow, and a few other connections I believe.


 * Bellow is dead, though his death is relatively recent and your comment may predate it. Bellow taught at Boston University after leaving the Chicago faculty; I don't believe he taught at Northwestern but have not checked.


 * And Bellow’s death is relevant how exactly? Does the Swedish Academy rescind the award when a recipient dies?  The Cambridge entry, quite correctly, lists numerous deceased recipients.  Furthermore, the comment above states that Bellow graduated from Northwestern--which he did--not that he taught there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.182.1.4 (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * John Pople (Chemistry 1998) taught at Northwestern but died in 2004. Aaron Ciechanover (Chemistry 2004) has been a visiting professor at Northwestern's medical school since 2003 but remains based at Technion in Israel.

Industrial Institutions?
There is a question regarding prize winners who were substantially affiliated with industrial institutions. Strictly, the page guidelines only admit academic institutions. There is one industrial organization which has been home to so many prize winners that omitting it seems like a major omission: Bell Labs, with 7 who did their prize winning work at Bell and 4 more who were substantially affiliated with Bell at some time in their careers. Indeed, there already is an entry on the page for Bell Labs. I do not suggest removing it. (One quibble, since Bell Labs does not grant degrees, there should not be an entry in the column for "graduates". I think that, in the case of industrial organizations, substantial affiliation should be counted as "faculty".)  There are at least two other prize winners who were substantially affiliated with industrial organizations. Irving Langmuir did all, or a large part of his prize winning work at General Electric (Langmuir's Nobel lecture confirms this.) William Knowles spent most of his career at Monsanto Corp. and did all, or a large part of his prize winning work while employed there (Knowles' Nobel lecture confirms this.)  The high level page notes suggest a broad interpretation of affiliation, so perhaps a broad interpretation of institution is also warranted in the spirit of completeness. It would certainly be possible to note that Bell Labs, etc. are industrial rather than academic institutions.

7802mark 14:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Not just Bell Labs, what about IBM Research and Max Planck Institute, which might be argued is more like the Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences. That is an argument to remove the Labs from this list and create an affiliation list for "other societies, academies, and organizations which do not grant degrees". If that were to occur, then Max Planck Institute would still top the list. --Ancheta Wis 15:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Feynman and Bethe
I moved Feynman to Caltech faculty before the prize (1965) because he moved there in the 1950s from Cornell.

But why is Bethe listed on Cornell faculty after the prize. I was going to move him to faculty before the prize, but decided I should ask on this page.

--Ancheta Wis 14:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Melvin Calvin
I was surprised by the inclusion of Melvin Calvin in the Minnesota list. His Nobel Bio seems to skip the affiliation. --Ancheta Wis 21:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Calvin's bio at nobelprize.org says "He received the B.S. degree in Chemistry in 1931 at the Michigan College of Mining and Technology, and the Ph.D. degree in Chemistry from the University of Minnesota in 1935. He spent the academic years 1935-1937 at the University of Manchester, England. He began his academic career at the University of California at Berkeley in 1937, as an instructor, and has been a full professor since 1947. He has served as Director of the big-organic chemistry group in the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory since 1946. This group became the Laboratory of Chemical Biodynamics in 1960." 7802mark 15:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is ridiculous.
Who thought it would be a good idea to use a table like this? This is horrible. Each column for each university should be an unordered list (using asterisks). - mercuryboard talk ♠ 05:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am working on fixing this. - mercuryboard talk &spades; 07:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There, I fixed it. - mercuryboard talk &spades; 17:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There are still problems; to see why, just look at the University of Chicago's "Attendee or Researcher" column. These names are in no discernable order.  The "Graduates" collumn is more or less alphabetical, but there are errors.  Surely there is a sensible way to organize the entries in each column.

Seriously, and what is with this "Academic staff before, at or after the time of award." Get rid of it if it can't be filled with true statements. For example, U.C. San Diego (UCSD) has Clive Granger, Robert F. Engle, and Roger Tsien listed as joining the university after the award which is simply not true. The latter couple worked together at UCSD and Roger Tsien just got the award this month! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.107.141 (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The tables are difficult to edit, at least using standard Wikipedia tools. Would it detract from usability if each university, or each university with, say, more than 20 laureates, would be a separate section of the article? Then one could more easily edit just that one section without having to scroll around too much. Destroyer71 (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

California Institute of Technology
Removed Mark Muir Mills who never won a Nobel Prize.

It would be nice to find a complete list of Caltech researchers who won a Nobel prize. From a search through the Nobel Prize web site (auto)biography pages, I have deduced that

D. Carleton Gajdusek -- Physiology or Medicine 1976

Sheldon Glashow -- Physics 1979

Niels Jerne -- Physiology or Medicine 1984

Barbara McClintock -- Physiology or Medicine 1983

Jacques Monod -- Physiology or Medicine 1965

Phillip Sharp -- Physiology or Medicine 1993

James Watson -- Physiology or Medicine 1962

all held research positions at Caltech. I assume there are more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.83.70 (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Offical list from Nobel Committee
In case no-one's noticed, the Nobel Committee has their own list of "the university the Prize Winners were affiliated with at the time of the Prize announcement." 202.180.71.156 23:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Nobel Committee's list says only where the laureates were based at the time of their award and says nothing about where they studied or other positions they held before or after receiving their prizes. What's more, when they received their Nobels many winners in Literature held academic posts (e.g., Toni Morrison at Princeton and Saul Bellow at the University of Chicago, yet the list on the Nobel website acknowledges none of them.  The same is true of several winners of the Peace prize -- including this year's winner, Muhammad Yunus of Chittagong University in Bangladesh.

Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard
Her CV does not say anything of Harvard, she is still in Tübingen!--Stone 08:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Universidad de Chile
The two chilean Nobel prices, Pablo Neruda and Gabriela Mistral, both study in the Universidad de Chile. It will be nice if you add them in the chart. Sorry by my english and thank's! Rakela 20:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I added the two to Universidad de Chile. MoRsE 11:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank's! Rakela 04:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

University of Rochester
Would anyone be so kind as to add a section for the University of Rochester graduates?

Steven Chu (B.A. math and B.S. physics 1970), Nobel laureate (1997, physics) Vincent du Vigneaud (Ph.D. 1927), Nobel laureate (1955, chemistry) Daniel Carleton Gajdusek (B.S. 1943), Nobel laureate (1976, physiology or medicine) Arthur Kornberg (M.D. 1941), Nobel laureate (1959, physiology or medicine) Masatoshi Koshiba (Ph.D 1955), Nobel laureate (2002, physics)

It would be appreciated. I don't want to mess up the page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.151.92.175 (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

ETH Zürich
Count corrected. 31 with Albert Einstein counting twice, without "only" 30 but that`s still pretty good...

Yale University
Count corrected to 32. Fenn not to be counted twice.

Grandes Ecoles
Removed from list. There is no formal affiliation between the so-called "Grandes Ecoles". If we were to group these institutions, we could also from a group called "Ivy League". Same goes for the "University of Paris" System. If this system is to be taken as one, we should also group all state universities in the US, e.g. UC system, NYS system.

Having checked most of the "Grand Ecoles" entries, I removed most of them. The person editing this entry added every single french-sounding Nobel Laureate regardless of affiliation and education. Some didn`t even added a university, others were swiss. Others attended a Grande Ecole in Bordaux, others were affiliated with the Institut Louis Pasteur which, to my knowledge, is not affiliated with any university.

I might add that on the other hand a summarized listing of the "University of Paris" is correct. Although the 13 parisian universities act autonomously, there is still a rector`s office which controls all entities. This I believe should therefore be counted as one institution. However, the Grandes Ecoles should not.

Number of current nobel prize winning non-emeriti professors
A column showing the number of current non-emeriti professors who have won the nobel prize would be an interesting way to compare various institutions. I would exclude emeriti professors because by definition they are retired. Measuring nobel prizes this way avoids the problem of who did what when and where and shows the present location of active nobel prize winners. Sample list: MIT 10, Stanford 6, UC Berkeley 5, Harvard 5, U Chicago 5. If people are interested, I'll add a column with the names. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.119.64.110 (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Bristol
I've just added the University of Bristol, with 6 - and an interesting query. Two, Winston Churchill and Dorothy Hodgkin were not students or "faculty", in the strict sense - they were the Chancellors. Should quasi-ceremonial posts like this count? An intriguing thought. Shimgray | talk | 02:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bell Labs?
Why are institutions like Bell Labs listed? They dont award degrees, and are not "universities" or academic institutions by definition.

I suggest these be removed.--Zereshk 21:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that they are organized like universities. Researchers at bell labs are given the traditional freedoms that professors get at universities to pursue research. So in a way, they could be considered universities. 75.45.116.78 08:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Bell labs is not an academic degree granting institution, i.e. a university. Neither does it provide tertiary or quaternary education. There is little that Bell Labs has in common with a "university".--Zereshk 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RWTH Aachen
If someone could add the University and its 5 Nobel laureates ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RWTH_Aachen#Notable_faculty_and_alumni ), I don't know much about wikis and am to afraid of messing it up. Thanks.87.189.88.127 22:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Italian University
Università di Bologna: 2 nobel prize: Giosuè Carducci (faculty at the time) - Guglielmo Marconi (researcher)

Università di Roma La Sapienza: 5 nobel prize: Salvador Ludia (graduate) - Guglielmo Marconi (faculty after) - Giulio Natta (faculty before) - Emilio Segrè (graduate) - Daniel Bovet (faculty after)

Politecnico di Milano: 1 nobel prize: Giulio Natta (graduate, faculty at the time)

Politecnico di Torino: 1 nobel prize: Giulio Natta (faculty before)

Università di Pavia: 3 nobel prize: Camillo Golgi (graduate, faculty at the time) - Carlo Rubbia (faculty after) - Giulio Natta (faculty before)

Università di Torino: 3 nobel prize: Rita Levi Montalcini (graduate) - Salvador Ludia (graduate) - Renato Dulbecco (graduate)

Università di Sassari: 1 nobel prize: Daniel Bovet (faculty after)

Università di Milano: 1 nobel prize: Riccardo Giacconi (graduate)

Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa: 1 nobel prize: Carlo Rubbia (graduate)

Università di Palermo: 1 nobel prize: Emilio Segrè (faculty before)

Oberlin College
Oberlin College claims that three of its graduates have received Nobel prizes. They are Robert Millikan, Oberlin graduate 1891 (Physics Prize 1923), Roger Sperry, Oberlin class of 1935 (Medicine/Physiology Prize 1981), and Stanley Cohen, Oberlin graduate 1945 (Medicine/Physiology Prize 1986). Reference is http://www.oberlin.edu/coladm/after/nobel.html

~anon

Answer: it`s in.

Harvard Count
Bwithh 17:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Harvard's official count of 42 includes only faculty members and former faculty; alumni who did not become faculty members are not on its list but  account for most of the difference between Harvard's count and Wikipedia's.    U.C. Berkeley officially counts only those laureates who taught there when  they won their Nobels or who joined the faculty later; adding alumni and  former faculty to the list makes it much longer.

Answer: they`re in, count extended.

Inconsistently with the rest of the list, Harvard's count is listed as 76, but its place in the ranking derives from the official count of 40-something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.228.176 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cornell
Cornell should have 32 Nobel Prizes, because the list does not include former professor Henry Taube, Chemistry 1983. Sorry, but I have no idea how to edit this page. --Xtreambar 17:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Answer: he`s in.

US Naval Academy
The Wikipedia article on A. A. Michelson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Abraham_Michelson says that he graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy. This is corraborated by the Naval Academy, http://www.usna.edu/LibExhibits/Michelson/Michelson_navy.html, also by the American Institute of Physics, http://www.aip.org/history/gap/Michelson/Michelson.html, also by nobel-winners.com, http://www.nobel-winners.com/Physics/albert_michelson.html and by the Nobel Prize Committee official site http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1907/michelson-bio.html 7802mark 21:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer: included.

Juniata College
William D. Phillips (Physics Prize 1997) is a 1970 graduate of Juniata College http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1997/phillips-autobio.html http://departments.juniata.edu/physics/alum_accomp.html 7802mark 22:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer: included.

Penn State
Paul Berg (Chenistry prize 1980) earned a B.S. from Penn State in addition to the already noted PhD at Case. http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/1980/berg-cv.html http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/1980/berg-autobio.html http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Eberly3-2001.htm 7802mark 22:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer: included.

University of Costa Rica??
In Costa Rica there's a Peace Price Winner that studied at the University of Costa Rica and this college is not listed. I was going to post it but this page can't be edited.

Answer (6/5/07): you`re talking about Óscar Arias. He attended I`ll add him. He attended Colegio Saint Francis in the capital city of San José.

Columbia???
The number listed does not match the number of people. While I do not care to go through each article, at first glance I noticed that J.M. Coetzee lacks any affiliation to the school.

Answer (6/6/07): you`re right, couldn`t find an affiliation either. Took him out.

University of Texas at Austin has a bunch that are not acknowledged.
Answer: They`re in now.

City College of New York is completely left off of this list although they have 10 alumni who are Nobel Laureates
Answer: They`re in now.

Duke University Question
I think Charles H. Townes should be added to the Duke list if he meets the criteria. He received his M.A. from this institution. I do know know how to go about modifying this page. Please do this if it is appropriate. Tinlash 01:31, 30 May 2006 Answer: He`s in.

Please merge List of Nobel laureates associated with University of California, Berkeley into this article
Answer: They`re in.

University of Toronto
According to UofT quick facts, there are six Nobel winning graduates. There is also no mention of Bertram Brockhouse in Noted Alumni, although he did graduate from the University.

http://www.utoronto.ca/aboutuoft/Quick_Facts.htm

The page lists 8. 24.57.131.18 02:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer: The page listed 8 total U of T people, including faculty. Six of them, including Brockhouse, were graduates. There was no contradiction. FlocciNonFacio 05:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

University of Göttingen
in that article they have 44 winners. 85.64.199.180 10:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer: listed, but not by name. If you have time, please go ahead and so the work.

Washington University in St. Louis
Page below claims 22 (+1) winners: http://library.wustl.edu/units/spec/archives/facts/nobelprizes.html

Answer: right, Aaron Ciechanover added.

University College London UK has 18 Nobel Prizes
Answer: the referenced site shows 19.

Trinity College Dublin
There were two people associated with the university that gained noble prizes. Samuel Beckett - Alumni Ernest Walton - Academic

I would personaly edit the page but I do not know how to do so.

Answer: they`re in.

National University of Ireland, Maynooth
Has one alumni nobel prize winner.

John Hume

Answer: he`s in.

ecole normale superieure, paris
Ecole Normale Superieure has at least 9 prizes along its alumni

Claude Cohen-Tannoudji Pierre-Gilles de Gennes Gabriel Lippmann Louis Néel Jean Baptiste Perrin (1891, 1926 Nobel Prize in Physics) Paul Sabatier chemistry Alfred Kastler (1921, 1966 Nobel Prize in Physics) Romain Rolland (1886) (1915 Nobel Prize in Literature) Jean-Paul Sartre (1924) refused the Nobel Prize

Answer: they`re in.

Marine Biological Laboratory
the MBL in Woods Hole, MA has had 56+ Nobel laureates associated with it. It is a research institute with faculty, postdoctoral researchers and graduate students (internally and from Brown, visiting graduate students from all over the world). As an institution, its contributions to science are immeasurable and should be on this list - ask any scientist and they'll tell you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.251.32.147 (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Texas laureates
Please doublecheck the NL from Texas schools in my recent edit. Im not positively sure which column they belonged to. All the info merely came from here: http://www.tamest.org/nobelprize.html

Thanx.--Zereshk 02:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This article needs some alphabetizing (by school names).--Zereshk 20:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The table is ordered according to the number of laureates connected to each school (column 1), from most to least. Ordering it alphabetically would make it far less useful.  In its current form people who want to find a particular school can simply search for it, but if the list were alphabetized and someone wanted to see which schools were in the top five they'd have to browse the entire table.


 * I meant sub-alphabetizing. There are e.g. 26 schools with 2 nobel laureates. They are not alphabetized.--Zereshk 17:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Edwin G. Krebs
Edwin G. Krebs nobel prize in medicine, was a faculty member at UC Davis for a while after receiving the award. Should he be included in After award affiliation? Check his biography as he founded a whole department at UC Davis.75.45.116.78 07:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetizing the lists
For universities with the same number of total laureates (as calculated on the Wiki page), let us agree to list them in simply alphabetical order, without regard to the definite article 'the.'


 * I agree.--Zereshk 17:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing schools
Some schools (ie Princeton) are not given data since there is a link given to an informative University page with the relevant info. I think our purpose here is to be thorough though and regardless of existence of such a page, we should nonetheless include such info for these schools. Unless (and I don't see) an agreement to the contrary has been reached in this discussion thread. June 13 2007


 * A link is preferred, if it is given. Those that have details (like UT Austin) are because you cant find their Nobel Laureates listed in one place.--Zereshk 17:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

At least four Swedish universities are totally missing from the list: Karolinska Institutet have awarded six of their own ranks, Stockholm University with four laureates (five if you count in economics), Lund University sharing 3-4 laurates with the other, and Göteborg University with Arvid Carlsson. Also Stockholm School of Economics with Gunnar Heckscher if the economics prize is counted. Since the list for Uppsala university is in place and very complete, one starts to wonder if anyone from there has been erasing most other Swedish institutions? /sv.wiki Tomas_e

The information about the Swedish universities is true. One should fix this problem up.

Bell Labs?
Why is Bell Labs on this list? It's not a "university". It should be deleted. Otherwise, why not list other labs too? Oak Ridge National Lab e.g. is operated by the University of Tennessee. Why not list it?--Zereshk 17:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sortable?
I think it would be helpful if parts of this table were sortable. This would help someone who might be looking for how many graduates received the Nobel prize, rather than graduates and employees. If anyone knows how to code for this I think it would be a good idea to do it. JRWalko 00:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Princeton & Johns Hopkins
Some very famous universities, notably Johns Hopkins and Princeton, have no details. You'd think this information would be at the fingertips of these institutions' public-relations departments. I find it a little odd that they haven't hastened to update the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

University of Chicago
I see that someone added Peter Grünberg to the list of Nobel laureates associated with the University of Chicago. Grünberg is associated with Chicago because he worked at Argonne National Laboratory, which the university operates. This seems like an acceptable type of association, so I'm adding Alexei Abrikosov, an Argonne scientist who won the Nobel Prize in 2003.Willow1729 01:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind, he's already on the list. Does anyone know why the University of Chicago isn't officially claiming affiliation with Peter Grünberg?Willow1729 14:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably because he was already working for another institution at the time (vs. Abrikosov who worked for Argonne). --Dpryan 16:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew University and Technion
There's no entry for the Hebrew university. Aaron Ciechanover, Avram Hershko, Daniel Kahneman and David Gross are graduates. Kahneman was former faculty and Aumann is faculty. Roger Kornberg is a researcher. There's also no entry for the Technion, where Aaron Ciechanover and Avram Hershko are faculty.

Polytechnic University of New York
Was a home to three noble prize laureates. But it is not mentioned. Why not ?? Igoruha Marhc 20, 2008, 22:35 (GMC) —Preceding comment was added at 02:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

University of Minnesota
I removed Susan Berget aka Susan M. Berget, she never get a Nobel Prize. She is only cited as working with Philip A. Sharp, perhaps someone was misleaded by « Susan Berget, geneticist and research collaborator with Philip Sharp, winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine » at - phe 19:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comparability and "Official" counts
I notice that someone has edited Columbia and MIT to use the counts recognized by those universities as opposed to the more inclusive criteria used for other university entries. Counts using different criteria are not comparable and compromise the integrity of the list. Instead of using incomparable numbers and making special note of what the number would be using the more common criteria, wouldn't it be better to use the same criteria for all counts and make special note about how the number disagrees from what the specific university recognizes? I'd like to hear from others before I go and revert all the recent edits. Vantelimus (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at this page closer today to figure out how to fix the problems I noted above. I have concluded it has several problems. It would be nice to get the community involved in fixing the problems. First, the counts listed for universities are inconsistent. Some list "official" counts with a larger number given in parentheses when the count is calculated by more inclusive criteria. Others list a larger number and then give a smaller official count in parentheses. A further problem seems to be attribution. It seems there should be attribution for each institution listed. Instead, it appears there may have been original research done in creating this list as it appears some have searched for people to include outside of official counts (e.g. Cambridge, Columbia, Harvard, etc.). Vantelimus (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Official count versus actual count -- INCONSISTENT
The rankings are inconsistent. Some universities (like Columbia university) are ranked according to their official count, while other universities (like Harvard University) are ranked according to their actual count. This inconsistency needs to be fixed if these rankings are to have any coherency. I propose that all universities be ranked according to their actual count, since (i) some universities may not have an official count, whereas every university has an actual count, and (ii) the method for official counting differs by university, whereas the method for actual counting is universal. --216.165.62.185 (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with your proposal. Vantelimus (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove Stiglitz from Duke list
This page lists Joseph Stiglitz under the heading 'Academic Staff After Award" for Duke University, which is not correct. According to Stiglitz's own CV (http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download/Stiglitz_CV.pdf), his only connection with Duke is that he delivered the "Annual Frey Lecture on International Property" there in 2007.  Delivering a single invited lecture did not make him a member of Duke's faculty or academic staff, at least not by any reasonable definition.  His name should be removed from Duke's list, and Duke's total should be reduced by one.  I would do this myself but I don't know how.  I have, however, removed the claim in the article about Stiglitz that he once held a professorship at Duke. 4.131.157.199 (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Color coding
Does anyone else think the color coding of the names by discipline looks cheesy and makes the list harder to read? Vantelimus (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I did it because I was looking for a correlation between economics and literature Nobel Prizes depending on institution... Anyway, I thought this could be useful to someone else. I find it useful, but it does look cheesy ) -- ΑΜακυχα   Θ  02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps something like the following would be better
 * Legend:, , , , ,.
 * and, in the table...
 * John Doeundefined
 * With the above example, clicking on the superscripted marker should navigate to the Legend, with the browser's Back button navigating back. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest that color coding in any way does not aid understanding, but rather detracts from it. For text based material, text is best. Further, it interferes with universal access. I would like it removed here, as a start from removing it elsewhere. Cheesy is the word. DGG (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We could use superscript marks like:
 * Paul Krugman e, Louis Ignarro m, Paul Dirac f
 * Any objections? -- ΑΜακυχα   Θ  06:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps subscript marks like:
 * Paul Krugmane, Louis Ignarrom, Paul Diracf
 * as I suppose readers generally associate superscript marks with footnote links (actually, though, after having done it here I think the superscript marks work better).
 * Also, with either sup or subscript marks, how about linking to a legend as with the above example for the colored superscript mark. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a good idea:
 * Paul Krugman undefined, Louis Ignarro undefined, Paul Dirac undefined
 * Yet, I find marks for field to be useful in any form. -- ΑΜακυχα   Θ  00:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I quite like it as it is because it really helps to see which institutions have more literature or economics Nobel prizes and which "hard science" (physics, chemistry, biology).Merrybrit (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the color coding is very important. The colors are light enough that if you print in black and white they won't even show.I think the year of the prize should be listed with each Nobel winner, "John Doe, 2004" for example. This would explain a lot of the questions that appear above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottst (talk • contribs) 20:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Harvard
I've removed the note saying "The official count is 43 according to the Home Page." (vs. the number 75 in the article) from the Harvard section of the table. The Harvard University web pages here and here say that 43 current and former faculty members  are Nobel Laureates. The article lists 43.

That second referenced Harvard page gives their list. I've compared it with the article with the following results:

It looks to me as if the number 75 in the Harvard section of the table should be 94. Somebody please verify my counts on this.

Also, the article doesn't match the info from Harvard in Harvard names a number of persons as Nobel laureates who are or have been faculty members and this table does not so list them, and this table so lists a number of persons who Harvard does not so name.

I've got a headache from counting and recounting this table. It's entirely possible that I screwed something up. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's an impressive piece of work. I haven't proofed it thoroughly, of course, but I see two errors -- neither Bernard Lown nor Eric Chivian ever won a Nobel.  Both were among the founders of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which won the Peace Prize in 1985.  The organization was the only winner that year; none of its individual members or founders shared the prize.  The article about Chivian makes this point, but the Lown article says he won the Nobel.  I will clarify it. 209.144.201.12 (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have also removed Chivian's name from the main article, which had listed him under both Harvard and M.I.T., and have reduced each institution's count by one. Lown's name did not appear in the table, so it did not need to be removed and no totals needed to be adjusted to reflect such removals. 209.144.201.12 (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Impressive indeed, we should correct the list.
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 12:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think Albert Szent-Györgyi was ever affiliated with Harvard. When he settled in the US, he was at the MBL in Cape Cod, then at the NIH in Maryland. (No mention of Harvard in his English or Hungarian wiki entry either.) -- Marcika (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger
Henry Kissinger, winner of the Peace prize taught at Georgetown University in the late 1970s and should be added to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.77.10 (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

ETH zurich, new official link
ETH zurich has a new official page (link replaced, is not dead anymore). http://www.ethz.ch/about/bginfos/nobelprize The ETH zurich count thereby decreases from 30 to 21. Universaltraveller (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)universaltraveller

University of Washington
William Sharpe, (Economics 1990) worked at UW for several years (1961-68). Shouldn't he be included in the UW list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micropop11 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration
Finn Kydland, Economics price winner of 2004 is a graduate of the school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micropop11 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

University of California claim
I have removed from the introductory section the claim that "The University of California as a total has 111 Nobel Laureates affiliated with 7 campuses: Berkeley (65), Irvine (4), Los Angeles (10), San Diego (18), San Francisco (5), Santa Barbara (9) and Riverside (1). The names of the Nobel Laureates are listed in the chart under each campus." The quoted total double-counts several laureates; for example, both Sydney Brenner and Roger Tsien are listed under both Berkeley and San Diego. If someone wants to take the time to calculate the actual total, then it would be appropriate to restore the sentence with a correct figure.

Seaborg at Berkeley
I see at least one inaccuracy regarding the UC Berkeley list, and I wonder how many others there are. I found Glenn T. Seaborg listed under the University of Chicago, but somehow he didn't make the list for Berkeley, where he served as Chancellor. I'm new enough on here that I don't want to blunder in and mess up the list by trying it myself. Thanks! Rtadopaw (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Other issues after fixing table formatting errors
I just fixed a bunch of table formatting errors. I think that's right now, but I noticed a couple of other possible issues in passing. Someone who knows something about the content of this article should che3ck it over. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) University of The Witwatersrand appears twice in the table
 * 2) Albert Einstein appeared outside of the table (just above it). That seemed to be being caused by some stuff in the wikitext in between the Nagoya University and Ohio State University entries. I removed that stuff.

Whitman College and the University of Oregon
Walter Brattain's biography at nobelprize.org indicates he earned his BA from Whitman College and MA from the University of Oregon. Likewise William Murphy's bio indicates he earned an AB from the University of Oregon. Neither institution is included in the list. Thanks! 76.102.42.53 (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul Crutzen
Paul Crutzen recieved his nobel-prize in chemestry working at Gutenberg University Mainz, where he did great part of his research work at the Max Plank Insitute Mainz - this is correctly noted in the article on Crutzen, but in this list he is listed under Chicago while GU Mainz is not mentioned in the list!! --62.156.247.219 (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem with [[france|🇫🇷]] University of Paris
The actual (2011, 09) table is I think we should add some names

[[france|🇫🇷]] University of Paris
=

Golden Triangle (UK universities)
Message copied from Talkpage of Rangoon11:

Don't bother changing back the correct version of the web page to your laughably incorrect one. If your not going to be factually honest with the site, then get out of it!!!!!! As the founder said at the Berkman Law Center at Harvard University one evening in the first half of 2005, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia of facts that can be corrected by anyone on earth so long as the corrections are verifiable by any reliable source(s) that can be checked. Your version of the web page is not only intentionally incorrect, but also devoid of any factual source to back up what you say. I checked the Columbia University website and it doesn't even come close to what your count of the Nobel Prize winners was. Spread your falsehood on a blog and not on an encyclopedia that requires verifiable facts from reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.132.234 (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

University of California
I feel the University of California's total count should be mentioned in the introduction, especially since the University of London's total count is discussed. A quick count from my side, summarizing the individual campuses' lists in this article and removing double counts, suggest a total of 107 affiliated laureates, more than any other university.Kiki 233 (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted for a few reasons. For one, its not clear the University of London and University of California are equivalent frameworks.  They may be sufficiently equivalent to justify a similar statement but that doesn't seem clear from a basic look over of the different frameworks and how they are commonly (from my perspective) perceived.


 * More importantly, the "more than any other university" is uncited and unsupported by the article. Assuming the 107 number is correct based on names in the article and duplicates were correctly dealt with (I count 104), it is not the most on the page.  Harvard University has 124 unique affiliated winners.  Furthermore, its entirely possible that there's another university with a claim for more that no one has come up with yet, as Columbia and Cambridge are both just under 100.  PantsB (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I have remover the phrasing "more than any other university". However, I still strongly feel the UC should be mentioned in the introduction. I also note that the University of London mention is unsupported by citations. Kiki 233 (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Request move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move - "Academic affiliation" is unnecessarily vague. Neelix (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation → List of Nobel laureates by academic affiliation – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC) -- since in my view it is crazy for a centre of academic research as important and relevant as the MRC Laboratory of molecular biology in Cambridge, with 20 Nobel prizes to its name, to be removed from this list on the grounds that "the article title is 'List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation' - the MRC is not a university. Period." Jheald (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - far too vague and will result in the article becoming completely unfocused. Where would the line be drawn? It would be a constant source of contention as to what an 'academic' institution is.
 * Many very important research institutes, companies and other organisations are excluded from this article, such as the Max Planck Society, Pasteur Institute and NASA. There is a very good reason for that - they aren't universities. To exclude the MRC from this article is not to fail to recognise its importance, merely to understand that it has no relevance to it. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Pasteur Institute I think should indeed be here; the Max Planck Society probably not, as it's geographically federated so diversely. Ditto NASA, but LANL might be a more interesting example. Jheald (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not just List of Nobel laureates by affiliation? Who cares if they are university, academic, industry, etc.? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 20:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because that will become a completely unfocused and almost unlimited list of absolutely no use or value. Having gone to a primary school, been in the Boy Scouts or worked at McDonalds could all fit that description. A list by university affiliation is sufficiently focused to be a useful and reasonable article. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will be too difficult to draw a line between something like NASA and McDonald's... –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 23:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Marine Biological Laboratory
the MBL in Woods Hole, MA has had 56+ Nobel laureates associated with it. It is a research institute with faculty, postdoctoral researchers and graduate students (internally from Brown, visiting graduate students from all over the world). As an institution, its contributions to science are immeasurable and should be on this list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.251.32.147 (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've the same problem with this list. MBL would appear to be a case in point. The Max Planck Society is in a similar situation; somebody in an earlier contribution compared it to the United States National Academy of Sciences, but that's an erroneous comparison - the Max Planck Society is a conglomerate of research institute with faculty, postdoctoral researchers, graduate and even some masters students (with the degree granted by collaborating universities; full disclosure: I work at one of the Max Planck Institutes as an outreach scientist, and thus am not a disinterested party). The Institute for Advanced Study is another case in point, and the Soviet Academy of Sciences with its own institutes another. All these institutions, even if they do not grant degrees themselves, are an integral part of academia. Nobody changing from a university to any of these institutions would be said to "leave academia". They might not grant degrees themselves, but they provide a key part of academic training for their students. The Nobel prize foundation itself, by the way, has no problem listing them on its List of Nobel Laureates and their Universities, presumably precisely because of the reasons I stated. All in all, I have trouble finding any reasons (beyond strangely narrow definitions that do not reflect the realities of academic life, that is) to leave out these institutions. Particularly as this articles summary defines it not as "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation", but more generally as "List of Nobel laureates and their affiliation to academic institutions". Markus Poessel (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-university Academic Institutions?
Why is this only a list of universities? There are non-university institutions that have nobel prize winners in abundance. For example: the various Max Planck Institutes, the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, International Centre for Theoretical Physics, the Institute for Advanced Studies, etc. CERN!

Reply: 1) Because the goal isn't just to find the largest concentration of Nobel laureates. CERN, NASA, etc are all great organizations whose primary purpose is research, not education. Institutions like these tend to concentrate laureates, but being affiliated with such an institution is not the same as teaching or being taught there. The purpose of a list is to compare and contrast similar things. Non-teaching institutions have completely different structures (and budgets and hiring practices) than teaching institutions. To compare the two would be like putting apple varieties and orange varieties in the same list because they are all sub-types of round fruit. 2) Most of the laureates I can name (though I admit I'm biased toward the sciences) who worked at non-teaching institutions are/were also affiliated with at least one teaching institution, often concurrently. So listing only "universities" should not exclude very many laureates. 3)I refer you all once again to the definitional problems mentioned in previous discussions. What counts as an academic institution? What about labs affiliated with universities? Would they be listed separately? What if the lab is affiliated with multiple universities, but individual scientists aren't? What about hospitals? What about groups of hospitals? What about all the different types of professional organizations (e.g. National Academy of Science, American Association of Whatever)? How would we ever decide what should and should not be included? This list is complicated enough without adding even more ambiguity! Kylaramm (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

NOT IPCC members and the 2007 Peace Prize
I just looked at this, which is cited as a raw URL and has been tagged as a dead link for a few months. It's still not working.

However, this other cited source does work, and contains the information that the named awardee supported by this source shared half of the 2007 Peace Prize along with "hundreds of other scientists who contributed to the group’s work over the past 20 years". This press release makes it clear that half of the prize was "shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr." -- not distinguishing between members of the IPCC.

If any or all of the hundreds of IPCC members sharing the 2007 Peace Prize are to be listed in this article, I suggest that their entries be asterisk'd and footnoted to explain this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the Nobel Foundation itself the members didn't win the Nobel, just the organization. This is not unprecedented (the Red Cross has also won for instance). Membership in the IPCC should not be equated with winning a Nobel Prize PantsB (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should make clear on the page itself that members of organizations that win the prize are not to be included. I have removed two IPCC members, not out of disrespect, but out of a need to properly categorize contributions. If one IPCC member were included, they all should be, and many of them do not have Wikipedia pages, nor would they necessarily want one. By extension, we would then need to include members of the Red Cross whenever that organization shared in a prize, which would be impractical. Also, I don't think any of us would argue that any individual IPCC contributor should get the same degree of consideration as an individual Nobel prize winner. If we wish to acknowledge those individuals involved with the IPCC, perhaps we should make a list just for them? I do not believe such a wiki list currently exists.Elriana (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I have removed James Orbinski from the list. James Orbinski was the president of the International Council of Médecins Sans Frontières (aka Doctors Without Borders) at the time the organization received the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize, but was not explicitly named as a recipient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elriana (talk • contribs) 18:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Friedman and Feynman
Friedman was briefly a professor at both the university wisconsin-madison and the university of minnesota twin cities. Feynman was also briefly a professor at the university of wisconsin. Should these be included? It seems like they should under the technical rules, but the briefness of the positions seems like it has little meaning in a noble prize count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark567 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Feynman also did some brief work at University of Chicago according to his auotbiograpy 50.148.73.101 (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion based on Harvard entry
It seems there is some contention about the number of people in the Harvard entry. I went through the Graduate list and the Attendee list. I found a few that don't seem to have any connection to Harvard. John Bordeen is not a graduate, but did work there. His entry should be moved to either Attendee or Teacher. Elizabeth Blackburn only has an honorary degree. I would say those only with honorary degrees should be removed since anyone can give an honorary degree. If she has more of a connection to the university, then her entry can remain. Eugene O'Neill went to one class at Harvard, but never completed it. Not sure how to handle this situation. Others, like Jean Dausset, I was able to find sources that they did research at Harvard even if their wikipedia article didn't have any indication that they did. For teachers, I was only able to check through TS Eliot. I couldn't find any connection to Harvard for Aaron Ciechanover, Francis Crick, or Willem Einthoven. If someone wants to go through the rest of them, feel free. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I went through the rest of the teachers. The following laureates I could not find a anything more than an honorary degree to Harvard, and some I couldn't find any connection: Richard R. Ernst, Nadine Gordimer, Luis Federico Leloir, Charles Scott Sherrington, Frederick Gowland Hopkins, Czeslaw Milosz, Enrico Fermi, Steven Chu, Aage Bohr, Isidor Isaac Rabi, Tsung-Dao Lee, Chen Ning Yang, William Alfred Fowler, Hans Bethe, John Cockcroft, Werner Heisenberg, and Oscar Arias.  If someone wants to double check the list and remove those with only an honorary degree or no connection, please do.  Patken4 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Many entries on this list lack citation, which I've tried to use any time adding anyone that doesn't prominently mention the connection on the linked wikipedia page. Going back for all is a pretty big project, especially if we're talking the entire page.  However, all of the ones you're listing have citations which are preferable to "its listed on their wikipedia".  Follow them. PantsB (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For the first few listed - Ciechanover - visiting professor from his CV, Crick - 2 time visiting professor , Einthoven has a citation where its pointed out he was a Dunham lecturer at Harvard. PantsB (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would not count honorary degrees at all. And anyone who did not receive an actual degree should not be listed as a "Graduate".
 * I do not know the consensus regarding minimum length of attendance/affiliation. Perhaps that should be discussed further. Francis Crick was twice a visiting professor at Harvard, but I do not know if that should count as "faculty". Visiting professors have different lengths of tenure and different degrees of affiliation from place to place and time to time. Personally, I would not count visiting professors as faculty because they do not have the same influence over the programs at the university as full faculty do. On the other hand, this is a list of "affiliations", which a visiting professor could be said to have... Elriana (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * About visiting professors, I'm on the fence. You raise a good point about influence over the program and what they could have done in a year.  On the other hand, a lot of the official biographies about these laureates do mention their time as a visiting professor.  So it would seem their time as a visiting professor at any university seemed to have at least some impact in their career.  That is a larger discussion and would impact all the schools listed.  Thanks!  Patken4 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Part of the "point" of this wiki is that different schools use differing degrees of strictness regarding how they count. So as to not give an unfair advantage, the broadest definition should be used.  I agree honorary degrees shouldn't count since that's not an actual affiliation (just honoring them with an award), but non graduating attendees did attend, and visiting professors were on academic staff.  PantsB (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks PantsB, for your explanation. That is good enough for me. This criteria would apply to each university, so it is fair. Checking a few other schools, I see that they also have entries with less than one year of being a professor or student as well, so it seems this rule has been applied fairly. If there are some entries missing from some schools, I encourage people to continue to make the necessary changes. Thanks!


 * I deleted the laureates with short-term Loeb lectures, which are only two weeks long. While I agree that appointments of a year or slightly less in duration can be influential enough to merit this list, a two-week series of four lectures just isn't.  We shouldn't imply that Fermi, Heisenberg, etc, were closely affiliated with Harvard because of such a series.Imareaver (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Closely affiliated" isn't the standard. Loeb lecturers are visiting professors, members of academic staff. PantsB (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reverted. Even short term Loeb lecturers are titled Visiting Professor/Lecturer on Nobel CVs., in current Nobel CVs as visiting professorships   and listed as a visiting professor/lecturer on the Harvard webpage.  PantsB (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Should consultants be added?
Sorry, just a simple question. I'd like to know if consultants (not residing staff) are regarded as affiliates (since this article is said to adopt a broad methodology of counting)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biomedicinal (talk • contribs) 07:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Since a consultant is not Academic Staff or a Graduate, the only category they could fit into is Attendee or Researcher. If an individual consulted on a research project (as opposed to university administration/budgeting), they could be considered a researcher. I would add a note to any such entries specifying that the individual was a consultant and definitely include a reference. That way later editors aren't confused when they cannot find that person's affiliation in any bio or university list. In general, I would only include such a consultant if their interaction with the University or one of its labs was fairly involved. Being paid to walk through a lab and make suggestions on a one-time basis would not count. But training scientists in a particular method over the course of months/years might count, since some direct involvement with research can be inferred. Do you have a particular example you'd like to discuss?Elriana (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Previously, a user in the Chinese article argued that CUHK should be the sole tertiary institution having Nobel Prize affiliates in the city as others have laureates as consultants only (the user used HKUST as a comparison where several winners were invited to be the consultants in its Institute for Advanced Study and, as I know, no project is conducted by themselves there). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biomedicinal (talk • contribs) 06:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

NYU
The parenthetical notes under NYU are meant to indicate the actual institution at the time of affiliation. NYU-Poly has a history of association, disassociation and mergers with other schools. The laureates are currently listed under NYU because NYU-Poly is now a part of NYU. I'll spend some time checking that the parentheticals are correct, but removing them seems wrong. Perl, for instance, did not consider himself a graduate of NYU, but rather of Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute, which later merged with NYU-Poly. If you have opinions on this, please comment here before simply deleting the information. Elriana (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment on categories
The listing scheme employed by this page is more generous than most universities use in their official counts, and Harvard is dominant in part because of the many visiting lecturers they attract. The other leaders (Columbia and Cambridge) also benefit from this inclusion. The categorization scheme helps somewhat with distinguishing schools that foster Nobel Laureates from those that hire them after the fact (note that MIT has a lot of laureates before/at the time of the award and none after). I am not averse to adding a designation for faculty affiliated with an institution for less than a year, but rechecking the entire list would take a lot of work. Elriana (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Untitled
'''Yes this list is surely totally inaccurate. To see the genuine list by affiliation go to the original Nobel Prize site. University of California has the maximum and Rockefeller the most taking the size of its faculty.''' -> Why place planted data. We can get the accurate data from the original Nobel site. University of California system has the highest Nobel Prizes awarded-http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/universities.html'''

I have attempted to organize this talk page by putting similar topics together. I did not delete any comments, although a few headings are now subheadings under common topics. I tried to keep the comments chronological within each heading.Elriana (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The highlight colours are wrong
Surely physics should be blue, and economics should be green? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.4.44 (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Why? IF you justify your assertion, others might consider going to the massive amount of effort required to change the colors. Note that much of the list remains unhighlighted because no one has taken the ridiculous amount of time needed to categorize every recipient. Starting over to satisfy an arbitrary color preference seems like a waste. Elriana (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Citations aren't really needed for "unofficial" no. ?
Moreover, I'm thinking if citations are really needed for those "unofficial numbers" because we are using our benchmark to count the affiliates for this ranking, and since the people are listed we can check up the main pages of them. Further, many so call references for the unofficial no. of some universities are in fact wikipedia pages themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.198.203.200 (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The unofficial counts are simply the sum of the listed laureates (making sure not to count repeats). So no references should be necessary.Elriana (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Updating Counts
I'm going through the Universities with more entries and recounting the number of unique names listed (unofficial count), but any can feel free to double check my work since I could make a mistake. Except Heidelberg most have been minor, and I haven't changed the order to reflect the updated totals yet. PantsB (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the bookkeeping work PantsB! Now seems a good time to discuss names that appear more than once under one university. Is it useful to flag these in some way? If so, is a note, such as Note 7 a useful way to do this (see current Univ. of Cambridge entry)? Or is such a flag just adding useless complexity?Elriana (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If it could be done consistently, it would be potentially useful information if only by simplifying the count. Currently I'm running a script over the list of names that numbers and removed duplicates and then manually removing non exact repeats (John Smith and John Q. Smith for example).  I don't feel that strongly about it though.PantsB (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorting
Okay, I wrote and ran a program (not a bot) that sorts every list on the page by prize category. (As long as the entries are color-coded properly. We need to get on that!)   I'm letting everyone know this because, well, there might be some bugs I didn't catch that could mess up entries. Please tell me if you see anything! Imareaver (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is sorting by prize category really the way we want to sort? I find alphabetical more appealing, especially since not everyone is color coded yet (and I have spent hours adding color-codes. That job will not be done any time soon). Alphabetical is also nice for skimming lists for repeats. In an ideal world, I would put them all in the order of prize date, but I don't think anyone wants to go to that much effort. Elriana (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, if you do want to sort by prize category for some reason, contemplate the placement of Linus Pauling and Marie Curie. They each won prizes in two separate fields, but should only be counted (and receive a number in the list) once per list.Elriana (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, your program messed up the separation of the Cowles Foundation people in the Yale entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elriana (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Right now, I just have two entries for both Linus Pauling and Marie Curie right next to each other wherever they appear, and that seems to work. Sorting based on category makes sense to me because it allows readers to easily see how each university's Nobel laureates break down by category.  That reveals interesting information, like how strong MIT is in economics even though they're stereotypically a tech school, and stuff like that.  But you make a good point about alphabetical sorting for checking repeats, so the page is now sorted alphabetically after the category-sorting.  Hopefully nothing broke in the process. Imareaver (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Still need to fix the Cowles Foundation people in the Yale entry. Is there a way to make your code leave them alone once they're fixed? Elriana (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, forgot about that, thanks! Yeah, it was a really easy modification, and I just did it.Imareaver (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The sensible way to sort the lists would be by date. But if they must be sorted alphabetically, then please alphabetically by surname, rather than by first name. Jheald (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorting by date would be extremely time consuming, since there are no dates directly associated with this list. The only reasonable way I can think to do it would be to write a script that goes to one of the other list pages (List of Nobel laureates in FIELD) to retrieve the dates automatically. I do not currently possess the skills to write this script. In the meantime, sorting by last name would be nice. Even then, there will be errors with compound or double last names, since they are indistinguishable from middle names.Elriana (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

References section sorting?
The references section claims "The following is a list of university homepages", but this is no longer true. Several of the references are to articles and/or news stories on individual laureates. There should be a place for such references, since they can shine more light on the specific affiliations of individual laureates than many of the university websites. But either they need their own reference/notes section, or the text in the References section should be changed. Anyone have opinions on this?Elriana (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility for color blind
I understand that colorblind people may have had issues with the previous highlighting scheme, but the new abbreviation tagging scheme seems pretty useless. If you want to know the particular field of a single laureate, you can always click on the laureate. The point of the colors was to provide a visual clue about the prevalence of certain categories at each school. Could we not both highlight AND tag? or maybe highlight the tags themselves? So colorblind people can read them, but the rest of us still get the visual information?? Also, the weird '?' I get when mousing over the new tags makes them seem like broken links instead of useful information. There has got to be a more elegant way to do this.Elriana (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * sure, we could do both, but the  is the accessible method for presenting abbreviations. Frietjes (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Countries and Flags
The goal of this list is not to sort laureates by country (there's another list for that). But I find that the flags help me mentally place the university names. Some people seem to prefer spelling out the country name or not including it at all. Before we make systematic changes, can we please discuss the reasoning behind them? Elriana (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:FLAG these universities should not have flags, especially the US universities that have nothing to do with the US other then location. User:Ohconfucius in general removes flags per the this MOS. He did this here and I requested that he remove the countries completely as they serve no purpose and should not be in the section headings. Why should it say Harvard University United States. While it might be helpful the school is wikilinked below. If you want to know where it is click the link. If someone wants to add it to the box the school has I don't have strong objections to it but in the section heading is just illogical. So per MOS:FLAG it should not be a flag and in my opinion it does not belong in the heading with the school. Look at the version before my revert and tell me if you think that makes sense. XFEM Skier (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The use of flags in the article were in breach of MOS:FLAG because the notion of national representation does not apply – universities here do not "represent" the countries. In addition, they also breach MOS:HEAD, which advises "Headings should not contain images, including flag icons." Also bearing in mind the list contains the names of the most prestigious universities in the world, and we are not talking about University of Westminster, I think we can dispense with the flags or the country names in the heading. I would have no objections per se if you want to rearrange the table to account for the countries where the universities are, but I don't really see much point, as you already indicated. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the justification. I have no strong objection to the edits given your arguments, but I did feel they should be articulated. I would point out, however, that most universities do represent their countries of origin. In the US, even those that are not state institutions are frequently funded through the state and/or federal governments. The sciences in particular are generally funded by government grants through agencies like the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health. So in a very tangible sense, research performed at private institutions such as Caltech and Harvard represents the intellectual pursuits of the United States. Just something to keep in mind.Elriana (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Number of Laureates as in October 13th 2014
As two former attendees of the University of Paris received nobel prizes, Patrick Modiano (literature) and Jean Tirole (economics), shouldn't be number of laureates updated?

--Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Block user
Could an admin please block user 173.32.72.64? He/she keeps deleting an official laureate from Oxford's count, plus editing the count to a lower number. Kiki 233 (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not the appropriate place for that request. Please see WP:ANI. XFEM Skier (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Harvard should NOT be first
Either Chicago or Cambridge should be first. Harvard doesn't even come close. Many of the entries listed are outright false or unverified.

As a Harvard student, if Harvard was top for Nobel prizes, there would be a lot of bragging about it. But it's not, and even Harvard acknowledges that.


 * We are either going to list the universities according to their total affiliations or according to their official counts only. In that sense, your ordering simply doesn't make any sense. It doesn't strictly follow neither of the two rules. In your ordering, Yale and Stanford (both of their official counts are in 20s range) are above Harvard when Harvard's official count is in 40s range. Ordering by official counts only is not feasible, since many universities do not publish their official counts. Moreover, you should first prove what entries are "falsified" before doing what you just did. The list has been like that for as long as I can remember.

^
 * Your response makes no sense at all. Fine, we sort by official count only. My mistake then for not sorting the rest properly.

Ordering by official counts IS feasible. Many universities do not publish their total counts, only their official counts. Harvard is a good example of this. Their website does not list 150+ laureates on their website, it lists 48. So this idea of a "total count" is original research, and bad research at that.

You can't have been around here for very long, as Harvard was never placed at the top. The top position was a struggle between Cambridge and Columba until this absurd, immeasurable idea of "total affiliations" started to rip apart any credibility this list ever had. Harvard never came close to being top, and rightly so.

Furthermore, the list is NOT consistent because some universities only have their official count contributing to their position in the list, while others have the extended unofficial count. This is terrible methodology. How is it fair to rank one university for publishing their official count, and another for publishing tenuous associations?

I've been through the list and taken the official counts for ease of viewing. The page needs to be reordered as necessary.

Harvard - 48 Columbia - 82 Cambridge - 90 Chicago - 89 MIT - 78 Berkeley - 61 Oxford - 51 Stanford - 27 Yale - 25 Paris - 51 Gottingen - 44 Cornell - 41 Heidelberg - 32 Humboldt - 29 Princeton - 37 Johns Hopkins - 36 Ludwig Maximilians - 13 NYU - 4 Caltech - 31 ETH Zurich - 29 Pennsylvania - 28 UCL - 21 Manchester - 21 UIUC - 24 Rockefeller - 24 Minnesota - 23 Washington St. Louis - 22 Carnegie Mellon - 19 University of Zurich - 12 UCSD - 20 Michigan - 20


 * Please read at least the lead of the article before making large changes to the structure of the list. The lead states the order of the list and the reason for using that order. If there are any incorrect affiliations feel free to bring them up. If you disagree with the methodology that can be discussed here and if consensus is reached a change can be made, but look through the talk page and the archives of it first since it is not worth rehashing conversations in general. XFEM Skier (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, Harvard University educated 69 Nobel laureates (look at the list and check), but its official count is only 48. Should we then still count official counts only? As the introduction says, because of issues like this, we use the broadest definition of affiliation for the total counts. Moreover, Harvard doesn't brag about its Nobel laureates count because 1) the 152 count includes attendees, researchers and those faculty that joined after winning their Nobel prize (if we use a definition looser than Harvard's official count but stricter than the total count on the wiki article, Harvard's total will still be quite large but possibly be lower than that of Columbia, Chicago and Cambridge) and 2) it has lots and lots of things other than that to brag about (e.g. its billionaires count, presidents count, etc). Wisdompower (talk)

It seems to be a good idea to choose some kind of official count. I am sure Harvard would brag about Nobels if it would feel it could ;) The current methodology seems bias towards universities into which we've done more research to find any kind of associations, so the other ones have "official count" competing against a huge unofficial count from Harvard. I am sure if we investigated for unofficial count from other places some of them would beat Harvard too. I think the official count should be the one which is currently used, and then any other laureates can be listed under a column of "unofficial", but the list must not be sorted by the unofficial ones. I cannot find where this change took place to change it so Harvard was put top of the list, but if you go back for a few years then it is clear it used to be much lower.


 * What is your proposed methodology for listing the schools? The current is logical and appears to have been consensus for a little while now. Please provide a constructive idea as opposed to just complaining that Harvard is first. Also note that this is not a ranking, but a list of affiliations. By all means propose a better idea or do research to show that other schools beat Harvard. Also please sign your talk page posts with four ~. XFEM Skier (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry to disappoint you (whoever you are), but Harvard should definitely be top of the list. I suggest you read this article http://articles.latimes.com/2000/oct/19/business/fi-38718 which describes how for instance the University of Chicago has one of the most "aggressive" nobel counting methods, while UC Berkeley uses a relatively conservative method. If we were to use "official" lists, then it would still not be "correct", since different universties apply different counting standards (and for instance the University of Chicago has spent a lot of time boosting their tally). If Harvard were to apply a more liberal counting method, its nobel count would be higher. And no, no other university would be able to beat Harvard's unofficial list.


 * In any case, Harvard doesn't need to brag about anything. Harvard is Harvard. this article is simply intended to provide an overview of nobel laurates and their university affiliations (as student, faculty, visiting scholar). All laureates in this list should be referenced. I really don't think moving over to an "official" list is going to improve the article. Fgimm (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

These issues have been hashed out higher on the talk page. Cambridge University and the University of Chicago admittedly use very broad definitions of affiliates. The purpose of this page is to apply the same standard across all universities, rather than the more reserved/restricted/conservative counts other universities, including Harvard, use. The Harvard entries have all been verified, on the laureate's main page, the primary Harvard citation and/or or in the citation as there has been past contention regarding their totals. Some individuals at highly prestigious universities have invested in this "Nobel inflation" so as to further enhance their institution's prestige and this has resulted in backlash. But comparing apples to apples, (as Fgimm put it) "Harvard is Harvard." PantsB (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Thank you PantsB.
 * 2) For consistency's sake, the page is ordered by unofficial count. The official counts are extremely variable in their methodology and do not exist for many schools further down the list. Using such inconsistent measures would not give the ordering on this page any credibility at all. If you wish to discuss the methodology used for counting, please start by reading the previous discussions and.
 * 3) If the objection to the current totals stems from a dislike of counting certain categories, perhaps that could be dealt with. Is there a way to make the list resortable by number of graduates or by faculty at the time of the award? This would be a formatting/coding change, not a total count or methodology change.
 * 4) Some schools will always be better researched than others. This issue is much more noticeable in the Other Universities section, where a single laureate's affiliation can move a school up the list quite a ways. Most of the universities with >20 laureates listed have been well-researched. I personally have gone through the lists for Harvard, MIT and Caltech and I have noticed similar efforts for Cambridge, Colombia, Chicago and Cornell. If we wish to minimize the effect of research time on number of laureates for a given school, we need to revisit the way visiting lecturers and consultants are dealt with. These are usually the laureates whose affiliation with a given school is only found through research beyond wikipedia and the main Nobel website. The current policy of counting any and all visiting lecturers as academic staff was discussed previously. While I do not like them counting the same way as full faculty, no one has come up with a clear way of distinguishing such short-term associations in a fair and consistent manner. (See ) Elriana (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What was the conclusion of this discussion? Things do not seem to have been resolved
 * The resolution is that there is no change to the page or even suggested change to the page. The count is determined as noted on the page. If someone wants that changed than that needs to be brought here. It was not so this issue is basically closed with no change. XFEM Skier (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Harvard Count
The Harvard numbers are wrong; it double counts whereas other schools do not (see T.S. Elliot for example). Either Columbia, Chicago, or Cambridge should be at the top in recent years, but there is no way it can be Harvard (Harvard being Harvard would have made a big deal if this was the case; I say this as a Harvard alumni). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.22.208 (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As for all universities, all four categories are counted and the repeats removed. Doing this I count (69+16+68+19)-20=172-20=152. Feel free to check my math, but my method of counting is the same as that used for all other universities. Please comment here about any issues you have with the total before editing the page (again). Elriana (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I noticed there is a statement in the article's lead that says, "As per official records, University of Cambridge has the highest number of Nobel Laureates (graduates as well as total official affiliations)." However, in the tables Harvard is listed as having produced 69 graduates, whereas the University of Cambridge has produced 65. For accuracy, the sentence should be amended to reflect this. How about: "As per official records, University of Cambridge has the highest number of affiliated Nobel Laureates, and Harvard University has the greatest number of graduates who are Nobel Laureates." Thoughts? Stpolicy (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The original sentence is technically correct. Cambridge has the highest *official* count. Harvard's official count does not include graduates at all. Therefore, the statement about Harvard should not be in the sentence that begins, "As per official records . . ." However, one could consider a record of graduation an official record, even if the school doesn't tally the laureates who are graduates. To be even more clear, we should probably change "As per official records" to something like, "According to official counts performed by the schools themselves". I'm putting this wording in now, but am open to suggestions regarding better phrasing. Many readers seem to overlook the implications of the fact that the *official* counts use wildly inconsistent methodologies, and will never "agree" with a list that attempts to use a standard method of counting. Elriana (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification, Elriana! I'd like to point out, though, that Harvard's official count (which can be found at http://www.harvard.edu/nobel-laureates) does include graduates: the most recent Laureate they list is Martin Karplus (Chemistry 2013), who earned an AB from Harvard; and the very first Laureate they list is TW Richards (Chemistry 1914), who earned an AB, an MA, and a PhD from Harvard. It seems Harvard's official counting strategy closely aligns with the Nobel Foundation's strategy, only including persons (whether alumni or not) who were awarded the Prize while at Harvard. Stpolicy (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, so they just don't include most graduates because it is highly unusual to receive a Nobel Prize with no other affiliation than having received (or still working on) a degree somewhere, even Harvard. Luckily, the wording in the article itself was general enough to avoid this detail. Thanks, though, for checking our accuracy/logic! Elriana (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Columbia and Cambridge
A ridiculous edit war has been taking place over the number of Nobel laureates "affiliated" with Columbia University, and over whether the "official" lists of Noble laureates claimed by Columbia and Cambridge Universities include people who had been affiliated with them for less than a year.

As far as I can tell, the web site which is cited as alleged support for the claim of 97 Nobel laureates for Columbia is nothing of the sort. By my count (carried out manually), the list on that page contains 72 names (9 for chemistry, 12 for economics, 3 for peace, 21 for physiology or medicine, 2 for literature and 25 for physics). The editors who keep reverting this figure back to 97 need to provide some convincing justification for it or stop edit warring to keep it in. If the extra 25 are awards earned since 2004 (which is the last year of any included in the cited list), then a source needs to be provided for that.

Likewise, the Los Angeles Times article cited as allegedly supporting the assertion that "University of Cambridge's official count does include affiliates for less than one year" also does nothing of the sort as far as I can see. What it says is "Cambridge University in England, which also uses the most liberal of counting methods, credits itself with more Nobels than the University of Chicago--74" (this was in 2000) without giving any speciic details whatever of how the Cambridge University authorities arrived at their figure. The article does say elsewhere that the University of Chicago's "official" list of prize winners includes Kenneth Arrow, who "taught for one year" at that university. If the assertion in question is an inference from these two items of information, it's an extremely dubious one in my opinion, but in any case it would be a synthetic conclusion not explicitly included in the source. As such, it would constitute original research and by Wikipedia's policy on such material should not be included in the article. Unless a good source can be found which explicitly supports this statement, it should be removed from the article. David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would support such a removal. The edit war has been as a result of a certain editor's unwillingness/inability to use edit summaries, engage in a coherent and civil discussion, and making bulk series of edits which also added inappropriate text to the lead and made other unexplained edits elsewhere in the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The table shows that there are total 97 laureates affiliated with Columbia. --Poliman97 (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of problems with this. First, there are only 96 distinct laureates listed in the table for Columbia, so where does the number 97 come from?  Second, the total numbers given for the other institutions appear to come from some sort of "official" lists, whereas you say that the figure for Columbia has been obtained by counting the names in a list apparently compiled by different Wikipedia editors using who knows what criteria for inclusion as an "affiliate".   Whatever number you come up with, it would appear to me to have been obtained by a process that would clearly constitute original research.  Note that the original research resides not in the process of counting the number of names in the list&mdash;which is a trivial process&mdash;but in representing it as the total number of Nobel laureates "affiliated" with Columbia University (whatever that means) as if it were in some way comparable to the numbers given for the other institutions.  Unless the figure listed for Columbia can be supported with a citation to a reliable source it should be omitted, in my opinion.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In principle there is nothing wrong with names being added to the list without citations, but once those uncited names have been properly challenged citations become imperative or the content should be removed.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is not specifically with names being uncited, but with the article's stating that the total number of names in any of the lists is "the" total of the number of Nobel laureates supposedly "affiliated" with the corresponding institution when the criteria for including names in the list&mdash;whether reliably sourced or not&mdash;have been decided by the individual Wikipedia editors who added them.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I see the number of Nobel laureate supposedly "affiliated" with Columbia has recently been changed back to 97 with no reason given for the change. Since the table contains only 96 distinct names I am at a loss as to understand why people keep reinserting 97. The numbers of names in each column are clearly 38, 14, 60 and 9, and these sum to 121. But there are 17 names that are listed twice (Penzias, Blumberg, Benacerraf, Varmus, Muller, Rabi, Langmuir, Rainwater, Bloch, Lederman, Murray, Ramsey, Axel, Hoffman, Solow, Fitch and Vickrey) and four that are listed 3 times (Richards, Lederberg, Schwartz and Friedman), making a total of 25 duplicates that need to be subtracted to get the total number of distinct names in the table. Subtracting 25 from 121 gives 96, not 97. Please either provide some justification for the number 97, or stop reinserting it. David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Added Individual - List needs reordering
I recently added George Akerlof to the Georgetown University affiliation in the column "academic staff after award." This brings the University's total number to require, which requires its position in the list to be modified. Can someone do this (I am not very good at manipulating tables on Wikipedia)?  Ergo Sum  18:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed! Thank you for your contribution Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Whats different about the OTHER universities ?
why are they treated differently than the others - i dont get it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.184.243 (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know the benchmark of getting into the "other universities" section which starts with University of Minnesota? I mean, University of California, San Diego has 20 affiliates based on the standard of this ranking which is lower than 21 of Minnesota but it can have its own section instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.198.203.200 (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think the threshold is something anyone has made official. I'd say, if one of the "other universities" has more than 20 laureates (please double check for any repeat names), go ahead and move it to its own section. Many of the listings for the "other universities" are incomplete, and some may well prove to have concentrations of laureates notable enough for their own section as information is added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elriana (talk • contribs) 19:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should rename it to Universities with less than 20 affilates or something?Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Who really supports the category "Academic staff after award"? The root of all problems on the Talk page.
It seems like most of the discussions on this talk page for the moment have their roots in the vague category of "Academic staff after award". At some point in time, adding it might have seemed like a good idea, but can someone please tell me why they support it now? The definition is ''Any laureate who was a member of the respective institution's academic staff only after receiving the prize. The degree of affiliation (adjunct, visiting, tenured etc.) is irrelevant for these purposes.''

Let's face it, to list universities based on Nobel laureates is immature and not very classy. To take pride in other's work just because you are associated with the same association is a sign of weakness, but it is kind of entertaining. I surely understand why we have it and I find it interesting to see which university that has graduated the most Nobel prize laureates and well where the most Nobel prize friendly research has been made. It is easy to define graduated or at least had studied. As for where the research has been made, it is more difficult. If the laureate have switched between different universities, it is probably more difficult to distinguish where his or hers findings where made since it is most likely a progress. Therefore I think most people will support the categories Graduate, Attendee or Researcher and Academic staff before or at the time of award. Any laureate could of course continue to contribute to his or hers field after they are received their prize so can be argued that a category "after award" could be interesting. However, the prize is almost never(except for the cases of Peace and Economics) given at the time of discovery, but once it has spread and been developed. This means that Academic staff before or at the time of award covers most relevant information and to include Academic staff after award brings a lot of problems as we have seen and feel more like a way for certain individuals to get "their" universities to be on the top of this page. I can list the following problems with this category:


 * It provokes edit wars
 * It doesn't really give much relevant information
 * It bloats the table, making it harder to read, take longer to load and more difficult to edit
 * It is easily abused and vague.
 * It is most probably inaccurate for every university accept the largest ones.
 * It strongly advantages universities English speaking countries since people are probably more willing to move there than to non English speaking countries
 * It lowers the standard of Wikipedia and this page
 * It strongly differs from how most of the academia officially counts affiliated laureates

But please tell me if you agree with me or if you can points at some of the benefits of this category and why you think the page should include it.Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that this category is flawed. The definition is vague, and the inclusion of short-term guest lecturers annoys me personally. However, we need something like this category to tell the whole story. Regarding some of the specific objections listed above:


 * Considering the scope of this page, the edit wars are relatively few. Most of these could be avoided if editors included a reference for their additions.
 * Relevancy: Knowing which schools have the money, research facilities/resources, and academic environment to attract prize-winning researchers throughout their careers is very useful. From a student's point of view, post-award laureates are fantastic resources. Often, they are more free to share their time and experience than researchers still fighting for every dollar of funding (or tenure). So it is useful to know which schools house them and attract them as visiting lecturers.
 * This table will always be long. I don't think a fourth column makes it any more difficult to read than a third column.
 * I agree that it is vague. Attempts to define it more explicitly have so far failed. I would personally prefer a definition that required at least a year of resident affiliation, so that visiting lecturers would largely be excluded. But such a definition is arbitrary and has proven contentious. If you have any ideas on how to deal with this, I would love to hear them.
 * The accuracy of every category is somewhat questionable for all but the largest universities. That is an argument against the entire list, not just this category.
 * English speaking universities have certain advantages in academia. This is an unfortunate fact, not an artifact of this list.
 * Wikipedia is only ever as good as its editors. I'd say the lack of citations for many entries (in every category) is a larger quality issue.
 * As discussed above, 'most of academia' does not count affiliated laureates in any consistent manner. Some universities only list current professors/researchers in their official counts, many of whom would be excluded from every other category in this list. How would we handle that without this category?
 * Elriana (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It is a good thing at least we can agree on that the definition is vague, however I don't think you have considered your opinion on this topic enough. I will reply to each of your statements.


 * Considering the scope of this page, the edit wars are relatively few. Most of these could be avoided if editors included a reference for their additions.
 * So edit wars was maybe the wrong word, but as you can see on this Talk page most discussions is about the flaws of this category. It is controversial and has no benefits in my opinion.
 * Relevancy: Knowing which schools have the money, research facilities/resources, and academic environment to attract prize-winning researchers throughout their careers is very useful. From a student's point of view, post-award laureates are fantastic resources. Often, they are more free to share their time and experience than researchers still fighting for every dollar of funding (or tenure). So it is useful to know which schools house them and attract them as visiting lecturers.
 * So you are basically arguing from a teaching perspective rather than I science perspective. The problem is that the Nobel prize isn't, and never claimed to be, a good indicator for teaching capabilities. It is perfectly fine to receive the Nobel with having absolutely zero interest in teaching and being a good lecturer.


 * Furthermore, on Wikipedia in general or university websites,this category is rarely mentioned because it lacks relevance. When you visit each laureate's individual page, universities they have visited after the award is never mentioned.
 * This table will always be long. I don't think a fourth column makes it any more difficult to read than a third column.
 * Do you realize how many universities in the world that has been visited by a Nobel prize laureate? This page would loose all relevancy if it they were included. The more of this questionable category we have, the harder it gets to get the information you wanted from here. Also although the official count varies, I am not aware of a single one that includes this category
 * Wikipedia is only ever as good as its editors. I'd say the lack of citations for many entries (in every category) is a larger quality issue.
 * Ahh, common misconception! Actually Wikipedia does not cover every topic there is. In order for Wikipedia to work each article must be up to standards of relevance and notablity Relevance
 * As discussed above, 'most of academia' does not count affiliated laureates in any consistent manner. Some universities only list current professors/researchers in their official counts, many of whom would be excluded from every other category in this list. How would we handle that without this category?
 * Of course this article needs consistent affiliation definition, but I don't what relevant cases the first three don't cover
 * --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Please do not make assumptions about how much thought has gone into someone's answers. I have considered and discussed this issue (on this very page) for over 2 years now. Let's stick to the issues, not personal comments.


 * 2) Many universities' official counts include laureates currently in residence, whether they won the award there or not. For example, Caltech's official list includes David Baltimore. Colombia's includes Leon M. Lederman and Harold Clayton Urey. These cases highlight one argument for this category: that it helps the reader parse the differences between the count on this list and any 'official' count.


 * 3) Some notable laureates are known for a long-term association with a particular school, but did not join that school until after their prize. See Jody Williams, for example. This sort of association is probably more common for Peace and Literature Prize winners because they are more likely to be unaffiliated at the time of their prize. I am not talking about 'visiting' scientists; I'm talking about laureates that spent many years at an institution with which they were not affiliated at the time of their award. These institutions are, in fact, usually mentioned on the individual laureate's page. Some examples: Paul Dirac's papers are held by Florida State, where he spent the last decade of his life. Much of Norman Borlaug's work with CIMMYT occurred while affiliated with Texas A&M, and helped to shape one of the best-known agricultural curricula in the US.
 * We really should have some way of handling these cases.


 * 4) I am not saying the Nobel prize is an indicator of teaching ability. It isn't. But past prize winners can be a valuable resource for students interested in a career in research. They bring money into programs just by being associated with a particular school. Past laureates bring in more high-calibre visiting lecturers and faculty because people want to work with/near them. And, from personal student experience, I can say that the past laureates made more time for lectures, lab tours, and small-group student discussions than those who won the award while I was in college or in the few years after. This list is about the intersection of the laureates and the universities. If we ignore the ways the laureates affect their universities, we ignore half the picture. The other three categories tell you more about which universities were part of building laureates. The last category is the only one that really gives a clear picture of which schools/programs are built by laureates.


 * 5) I do have an idea of how many universities are visited by laureates. That is why I have supported more stringent requirements for this category. But no consensus has been reached on where to draw the line between short-term visitor and significant presence. I believe that is where we should be focusing our attention. If the length of the list bothers you, eliminating the 4th column isn't going to make much of a difference anyway, since the other columns have far more entries (despite the broad scope covered by that 4th column).


 * 6) As for misconceptions, I am fully aware of the scope of wikipedia. That has nothing to do with the sentence referenced. The point I was attempting to make is that I find the lack of citations and/or inconsistencies with individual articles (both things individual editors could easily fix) a much larger quality issue here than the size of this list.


 * At this point, I feel that we have both made an attempt at putting forth our views. Given the number of editors involved in this list, I think any actions or further discussion should probably wait for input from other individuals. Elriana (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070802075529/http://www.tamest.org/nobelprize.php to http://www.tamest.org/nobelprize.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Highly dubious list
This has to be the most childish list I have ever seen on the internet. So Harvard has association with more that 150 Nobel laureates? And who are they? Hans Bethe, Isidor Isaac Rabi, Werner Heisenberg and many similar laureates who have spent only few months (maybe even few days) at Harvard. Is that a joke? A legitimate individual on such a list should either have earned a Harvard degree, or have had a formal appointment as a faculty member or a formal appointment as a researcher. So Columbia has over 100 Nobel laureates? Max Planck and Al Gore were at Columbia for only few months; such padding destroys the credibility of the list.

"Using a methodology consistent with that of University of Cambridge, Harvard University would have significantly more affiliated laureates."

Rubbish. Cambridge doesn't count individuals like Peter Diamond and Hans Bethe - both were at Cambridge for about a year - on their official list. If Cambridge uses a methodology consistent with that of this list, it will have well over 150 laureates.

Look at List of Duke University people. That list includes only those who have graduated from Duke or spent at least one year as a postdoctoral researcher or two years as a faculty member at Duke. This list is totally out of control and it will be extremely hard to fix this list. In Heels (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The question I have is what standard are you proposing? The quote is in regards to the official counts. Harvard's official count would be higher if they used Cambridge's methodology. The issue is almost no matter how the list is done there will be people that should or should not be counted on it. If someone spends 6 months someplace that has a profound impact on their work that leads to the Nobel prize then shouldn't that place be acknowledged. Essentially all post award associations are just going to the largest or richest schools and have no bearing on the the actual prize. Everyone seems to have their own methodology making it a hard problem to solve. Also culling this list will be time consuming and maintenance will be challenging with a striker standard, which would need to be proposed and agreed upon. XFEM Skier (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No. Harvard's official count would not be higher if they used Cambridge's methodology. Cambridge doesn't count Diamond, Bethe and many other laureates who have spent about a year at Cambridge. Please read my comment properly before commenting. If someone spends 6 months someplace that has a profound impact on their work that leads to the Nobel prize then they should be counted. That's not the case in this list. This list counts laureates who have spent only few months at a university - and that had zero impact on their work. Harvard had no role in the careers of Yang, Fermi, Bethe, Rabi and Heisenberg - and all of them only spent few months (maybe even less) at Harvard. We should respect official counts and include other individuals if they spent at least one year as a postdoctoral researcher or two years as a faculty member at the university. We can also include individuals who have spent at least 6 months, if that period had profound impact on their career. In Heels (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If you read through the opening you will see we don't use the official standard because no one has the same official standard, and the Nobel committee has its own different standard. I again suggest you propose a standard instead of saying this one is bad. I don't disagree that the current standard is broad and does not give a good indication of how universities support work that leads to a Nobel prize but that is not the point of this list. We need a standard that is objective or at the very least objective with some potential for exception given source that say it was important. Until there is a new standard agreed upon here I suggest you don't remove people from the list based on your personal beliefs. XFEM Skier (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I will not remove anyone from the list. I think that this is a bad list - we need some kind of new standard for this list. Maybe we should include only those individuals who have spent at least 6 months at universities. I want to know what other members of Wikipedia think about this issue. In Heels (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Harvard's official count is only 48, and does not include the individuals In Heels specifically names. I think the confusion is between the "official" count, which is what the university itself lists, and for which there are almost as many counting standards as there are universities, and the count made by counting the entries in this list. In the official lists compiled by the schools themselves, it is true that, "Using a methodology consistent with that of University of Cambridge, Harvard University would have significantly more affiliated laureates." That is why we had to define some specific methodology for this wiki list. But no one has ever managed to define a minimum affiliation time or level that got a significant consensus.Elriana (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a terrible list and it's meaningless. A university can only 'claim' a Nobel laureate if the person was awarded the prize for research conducted while on the faculty of that university. In the obvious case of the triple award for the discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule, Watson and Crick were at Cambridge and Wilkins was at King's College London. (Franklin, also of King's, would have shared in the award had she still been living.) It's not difficult. 'Claiming' laureates who happened to have been undergraduates at a certain university, or who were hired as faculty after winning the prize, is plainly dishonest. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This list is not about universities "claiming" laureates. This list is about seeing where laureates tend to come from and tend to go, which laureates were at the same institution and may have influenced each other (some laureates also leave a significant legacy at an institution long after they are gone, which influences later students and faculty). For instance, I know Feynman valued teaching, and that he supposedly influenced Caltech's Physics program. What other laureates may have been influenced by him while they were students? When they became faculty?


 * Knowing where laureates got their undergraduate degree is notable. It shows which universities have undergraduate programs more focused on research and/or are better at preparing students for research starting at that level and/or admit the students with the greatest research potential. It is interesting to contrast the schools with more undergraduates who went on to be laureates with the schools that have the most laureates awarded while on staff. For instance, Rockefeller University is clearly associated with some great laureates, but most of these were neither students or faculty. So their involvement with and influence on the educational structure of the university is less than at a school like Caltech or Oxford, where nearly all laureates were/are students and staff. Similarly, a university with more faculty laureates will be more influenced by those individuals than one where most laureates were students.


 * Do I agree that inclusion criteria are bit lax? yes. I would really like to separate the 'academic staff' columns into 'tenured faculty' and 'other academic staff' (researchers not part of the academic staff are already separate). But then someone will argue that a non-tenured associate professor who worked somewhere for 8 years is more relevant than a tenured professor who left after 3 years. Then there's the differences in tenure systems over time and between places to be dealt with. If you want a better list, propose a useful classification scheme we can mostly agree on. Elriana (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)