<p>These posts are getting very childish, but for the sake of argument…</p>
<p>“The true pattern [for relationship between # of Nobel Prizes, etc and “quality”] emerges only if you have a large enough sample size, which I would say would have to be several decades, not just 10 years.”</p>
<p>With regard to the Nobel Prize … since 1990 (2 decades) H has had 3 Nobel Prize winners, and S has had 8. Since 1980 (3 decades), H has had 10, and S has had 12.</p>
<p>With regard to the National Medal of Science, as datalook pointed out, S has had more winners than H since the award was given in 1959 (5 decades).</p>
<p>For some of the reasons you mentioned, I wouldn’t necessarily use these statistics to argue that S is “better” than H (whatever that means). But the statement that “I must rank Stanford in a tier below Harvard’s” is completely ridiculous and arrogant.</p>
<p>“I have argued that Harvard is better because it has far more resources than any other school, including physical, intellectual and financial resources, has collected the greatest assembly of top scholars and students on earth, and its faculty and graduates have made far greater impact than any other school in many key aspects of our society; government, law, medicine, business, media, etc.etc.”</p>
<p>I certainly don’t disagree that there are incredibly talented faculty and students at Harvard, but these grandiose statements are simply impossible to defend. What is “impact”? What defines “physical and intellectual resources” as great? From having actually studied at places other than Harvard, I’ve discovered that there are many smart people at those other places too … and some of them are actually smarter than their counterparts at Harvard. Yet for some reason, the arrogant “I think I’m better than you” types seem to cluster around the Big-H. Case in point here.</p>
<p>I doubt anybody is trying to say that H isn’t a wonderful institution. But that’s no reason to start insulting other schools and posters.</p>