<p>Not only is the # Nobels a completely useless metric because of how narrow and rare it is, but it’s not even a legitimate measure because the award itself wasn’t always so legitimate. When the Nobel was first established, its prestige was predicated largely on whom its awards went to, and so whether or not there were others who were more deserving of a Nobel, if they didn’t go to one of the established, prestigious universities, they weren’t likely to get it. If the committee gave it to non-prestigious universities, it would have undermined the prestige of the award itself.</p>
<p>In the early 1900s in the US, Columbia was definitely considered to be at the very tippy top - probably second only to Harvard. It’s natural that Cambridge (which has long been strong in the sciences, more so than Oxford), Harvard, and Columbia would have a particularly high advantage in Nobels.</p>
<p>But even looking at more recent Nobels is still pointless, so there’s no point in getting into arguments over “official” counts.</p>