@Penn95, you can easily verify my data above with Wikipedia.
The Times Higher Ed study was deeply flawed. Contrary to the way it was being portrayed, it was not a simple count of Nobel Prizes. Read the methodology.
First, it only credits a university for a given Nobel Prize if the faculty member was a professor at the time of the award, even if the research was done earlier at another institution or university. It is common for research to be done at one institution, but the prize is awarded much later when the researcher is at another institution. That institution thats supported the scientist and work gets no credit, which is ridiculous. Second, it does not credit universities for Nobel Prizes awarded to its alumni. You can go to Stanford’s own website, and they include alumni in their own count of Nobel Prizes. Third, it discounts Nobel Prizes awarded to 3 people versus those awarded to only 2 people (which there really is no justification for doing… it’s not like the quality of work is less).
If a researcher did research at institution A as a PhD student, and said research continued at institution B as a postdoc that resulted in a Nobel Prize winning breakthrough, and yet received the award years later when the researcher was at institution C, you think that it is “fair” that only institution C gets credit for that award, but not institution A and B??
Nobel Prizes are not awarded for “lifetime achievement”… they are awarded for specific breakthroughs and scientific discoveries. There is no reason to not credit the institutions that trained the scientist or the institution that supported the award-winning work.