<p>If you count papers or grants per faculty, no institute comes close to Caltech. Stanford biology is not better than Harvard’s, because undergraduates at Harvard are allowed to take advantage the pre-eminent labs in medical school and its hospitals (at least in paper). I also don’t see the major quality differences between Harvard’s MCB and OEB departments versus Stanford’s biology department. If anything, Harvard’s biology program appears to cover broader areas and have more layers of labs to choose from. Similarly, I do not see the point that “Stanford beats Harvard in chemistry easily”. You have to be specific. I hope that your argument is not based on USNWR ranking. </p>
<p>Those Hoover Nobels are not listed in any Stanford department. Instead, I found them in other institutes’ websites: Douglas North of Washington University at St. Louis ([Faculty</a> Listing](<a href=“http://economics.wustl.edu/faculty/]Faculty”>http://economics.wustl.edu/faculty/)), Gary Becker of University of Chicago ([University</a> of Chicago Law School > Gary S. Becker](<a href=“http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/becker]University”>UChicago - Sign In)).</p>
<p>Since we only discuss the academic strength of these institutes, I will refrain from digressing into teaching quality argument. </p>
<p>Ewho, no problem. I am quite neutral. I may go to Stanford or Harvard or Caltech or UCB graduate school later, and I need to keep my mind open and be analytical, even though I am heading to MIT now. This will be my last comment on this thread. Thank you for providing some provoking and thoughtful comments.</p>