Most Nobel Prize Winners by Country and University

[BlackVision]

Most Nobel Prize by Countries from 1901 - 2002

1. United States[/color] - 261[/color]
2. United Kingdom[/color] - 79 [/color]
3. Germany[/color] - 61 [/color]
4. France [/color]- 28 [/color]
5. Switzerland [/color]- 22 [/color]
6. Sweden[/color] - 18 [/color]
7. Russia[/color] - 11 [/color]
8. Netherlands[/color] - 9 [/color]
9. Denmark[/color] - 8 [/color]
10. Japan[/color] - 7 [/color]

Most Nobel Prize by Countries. Last 15 years Only

1. United States [/color]- 93 [/color]
2. United Kingdom[/color] - 9 [/color]
3. Germany[/color] - 8 [/color]
4. France[/color] - 4[/color]
Japan [/color]- 4[/color]
Switzerland[/color] - 4 [/color]
7. Canada [/color]- 2 [/color]
8. Denmark[/color] - 1 [/color]
Netherlands[/color] - 1 [/color]
Norway[/color] - 1 [/color]
Russia [/color]- 1 [/color]
Sweden[/color] - 1[/color]


Most Nobel Prize by University from 1901 - 2002

1. Harvard University[/color] (MA, USA) - 28 [/color]
2. University of Cambridge[/color] (UK) - 23 [/color]
3. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Munich[/color] (Germany) - 18 [/color]
4. Stanford University[/color] (CA, USA) - 17 [/color]
University of London [/color](UK) - 17 [/color]
6. Mass. Institute of Techology[/color] (MA, USA) - 15 [/color]
University of Chicago[/color] (IL, USA) - 15 [/color]
8. Cal. Institute of Technology[/color] (CA, USA) - 14 [/color]
UC Berkeley[/color] (CA, USA) - 14 [/color]
10. Columbia University [/color](NY, USA) - 12 [/color]
11. Princeton University[/color] (NJ, USA) - 11 [/color]

Most Nobel Prize by University. Last 25 years only.

1. Stanford University[/color] (CA, USA) - 11 [/color]
2. Harvard University[/color] (MA, USA) - 10 [/color]
Mass. Institute of Technology[/color] (MA, USA) - 10 [/color]
University of Chicago[/color] (IL, USA) - 10 [/color]
5. Princeton University[/color] (NJ, USA) - 8 [/color]
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Munich[/color] (Germany) - 8 [/color]
7. Cal Institute of Technology[/color] (CA, USA) - 5 [/color]
UC Berkeley [/color](CA, USA) - 5 [/color]
Columbia University[/color] (NY, USA) - 5 [/color]
University of Cambridge[/color] (UK) - 5 [/color]
University of Washington[/color] (WA, USA) - 5[/color]

Source: http://aaawww.fh-pforzheim.de/intoff/iopub/NOBEL03/land.html
http://aaawww.fh-pforzheim.de/intoff/iopub/NOBEL03/inst.html

 

[Evo]

BlackVision, you forgot to say why you are posting this. What are we supposed to be looking for here?

 

[BlackVision]

BlackVision, you forgot to say why you are posting this. What are we supposed to be looking for here?

It's simply healthy knowledge that's all. Shall we make a discussion out of the stats? Alright.

It seems quite clear that America is dominating high education. With 93 Nobel Prizes going to America in the past 15 years. UK at a distant second with 9. Also 9 of the top 11 universities are American. Why the large gaps? What is America doing that everyone else isn't?

 

[BlackVision]

Oh and I forgot to add. University of Cambridge is certainly a prestigious university and historically one of the best. But they seem to have dropped out quite a bit in the past couple decades slipping behind many US universities. Notice overall, they rank #2 in most Nobel Prizes won but almost completely drop out of the top 10 for the "past 25 years" list.

So how did University of Cambridge manage to slip behind? Why is one of the best universities historically now lagging behind others?

 

[marcus]

It's simply healthy knowledge that's all...

I agree it is good to know all kinds of things like that. You don't have to have a reason or even discuss it if you don't care to.

My feeling is that it would be interesting to get another list which would
be "by country of birth" for the past 25 years

this would give an idea of where the Laureates went to high school (and undergrad college)


just listing "by research institution" you could be counting a lot of
European educated people (and Israeli, Indian etc. too) who get offered a big salary and a nice
laboratory---good working conditions, topnotch colleagues----if they
will move to USA. it could be showing an effect of the high bidder grabs
the Laureate after he or she has already discovered something

 

[Evo]

I agree it is good to know all kinds of things like that. You don't have to have a reason or even discuss it if you don't care to.

My feeling is that it would be interesting to get another list which would
be "by country of birth" for the past 25 years

this would give an idea of where the Laureates went to high school (and undergrad college)


just listing "by research institution" you could be counting a lot of
European educated people (and Israeli, Indian etc. too) who get offered a big salary and a nice
laboratory---good working conditions, topnotch colleagues----if they
will move to USA. it could be showing an effect of the high bidder grabs
the Laureate after he or she has already discovered something

Marcus, you read my mind, I was wondering how many of the US prize winners were not actually from the US.

Also, I wonder how much effort and support are devoted to nominating someone for a prize. It is a feather in the cap of a university to be able to cite the number of Nobel Prize winners they have, so I wonder if certain universities make more of an effort than others.

 

[Moonbear]

Oh, there is a HUGE political component to the nomination process. It is very much about who you know, not just what you know, to get the nomination letters from the right people to be noticed.

 

[Moonbear]

One other note. When you consider population, number of research institutions and amount of science funding, proportionally speaking, some of those other countries probably start to really outshine the US. We just have more people and places to draw from.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Translation: The US has a system that attracts leading researchers from other countries and provides them with what they need to do Nobel quality work, so therefore the US lead in Nobels is phoney?

 

[Moonbear]

I wouldn't say "phoney," but more that it shouldn't be looked at as simply as numbers only. The scientific community really is international. Nobody gets by and does really well without some interaction outside their own country, so as much as we want to claim the US is better, it's really not a very meaningful comparison. Also consider that each of those winners has also gotten where they are through the hard work and dedication of many, many graduate students and post-docs. One person gets the credit, but it's usually an entire community of researchers that contributes to the discovery that gets the recognition.

 

[Nereid]

IIRC, there have seen some studies into the sociology of the Nobel Prizes, with results including a few fascinating 'Nobel trains future Nobel' cases. So it would seem that it's not only a certain institutional environment that can make a difference, but also there are certain leadership/personality/whatever components.

More data to show that science has a strong 'social' dimension?

 

[Moonbear]

Not just winners train other winners, but they also tend to be in the same social circles. We have a person here who was nominated for the Nobel...there was a symposium honoring him this past year, and as part of that, a dinner with presentations and slide show about his career and life, etc. Lots of pictures shown of him hanging out with other former Nobel Prize winners...so and so out fishing with him, so and so at a dinner at his house, so and so a fellow faculty member at this or that university. What can I say? I made sure someone took a picture of me with him! You never know whether that sort of thing might actually rub off ;-)

 

[shonagon53]

Most Nobel Prize by Countries from 1901 - 2002

1. United States[/color] - 261[/color]
2. United Kingdom[/color] - 79 [/color]

WOW! This means that British people are about 1/3d more intelligent than Americans, since per capita, they have far more nobel prizes!

This is amazing!

 

[Monique]

It seems quite clear that America is dominating high education. With 93 Nobel Prizes going to America in the past 15 years. UK at a distant second with 9. Also 9 of the top 11 universities are American. Why the large gaps? What is America doing that everyone else isn't?

WOOOOOOOWWWWH! Take a step back here! You can't be serious right?

The US is a huge nation and thus will have proportionally more nobel prizes if the intellectal properties were the same in both countries. You also need to understand that most likely all the people winning these nobel prizes in the US are not US natives.

It is well known that there's an intellectual exodus from other countries into the US, this started at the time of WOII where the Germans were on the hunt for intellectuals and were especially keen on certain groups of people. To name one intellectual that had to flee to the US because of this: Einstein. There were many more that followed him at that time. It was this, I believe, that precipitated the intellectual environment and has been feeding the hunger of other scientists to come there.

Does anyone have the stats? I think that before WOII European countries were infact getting more nobel prizes than the US and that this all changed after WOII due to the reason I mentioned.

 

[BlackVision]

WOW! This means that British people are about 1/3d more intelligent than Americans, since per capita, they have far more nobel prizes!

This is amazing!

United States population in 1900: 75 million
United Kingdom population in 1900: 35 million

United States population in 2004: 293 million
United Kingdom population in 2004: 60 million

United States was a little over double the population of the UK in 1900. Today it is close to 5X the population of the UK. Somehow I doubt you took this into consideration. Did you research how many Nobel Prizes the United States and the United Kingdom won every single year from 1901 to today and correlate it to the population of that year.

 

[shonagon53]

Most Nobel Prize by Countries from 1901 - 2002

1. United States[/color] - 261[/color]
2. United Kingdom[/color] - 79 [/color]
3. Germany[/color] - 61 [/color]
4. France [/color]- 28 [/color]
5. Switzerland [/color]- 22 [/color]
6. Sweden[/color] - 18 [/color]
7. Russia[/color] - 11 [/color]
8. Netherlands[/color] - 9 [/color]
9. Denmark[/color] - 8 [/color]
10. Japan[/color] - 7 [/color]

Wow! Am I seeing this right? Sweden 18?

So this basically means that Sweden has TWICE AS MANY Nobel prize winners than the United States, per capita?

WOW! Sweden is TWICE AS SMART! Good grief!

And Switzerland, with its 7 million inhabitants even more!

My God, the United States is really a backward country!

 

[BlackVision]

WOOOOOOOWWWWH! Take a step back here! You can't be serious right? :eek

The US is a huge nation and thus will have proportionally more nobel prizes if the intellectal properties were the same in both countries.

Even so 93 to 9 is a huge difference. Even after per capita taken into consideration.

You also need to understand that most likely all the people winning these nobel prizes in the US are not US natives.

It is well known that there's an intellectual exodus from other countries into the US, this started at the time of WOII where the Germans were on the hunt for intellectuals and were especially keen on certain groups of people. To name one intellectual that had to flee to the US because of this: Einstein. There were many more that followed him at that time. It was this, I believe, that precipitated the intellectual environment and has been feeding the hunger of other scientists to come there.

Does anyone have the stats? I think that before WOII European countries were infact getting more nobel prizes than the US and that this all changed after WOII due to the reason I mentioned.

Now all this is going off topic. I never stated that everyone that won a Nobel Prize in America is a native of America. My words were "dominating high education" Now if high intellectuals from other countries are choosing to go to America to do their research, that only further shows the truth to my statement that America is "dominating high education" Why else would intellectuals from other countries study and do their research in America if not for the better standards in high education?

 

[BlackVision]

Wow! Am I seeing this right? Sweden 18?

So this basically means that Sweden has TWICE AS MANY Nobel prize winners than the United States, per capita?

WOW! Sweden is TWICE AS SMART! Good grief!

And Switzerland, with its 7 million inhabitants even more!

My God, the United States is really a backward country!

Go back and read my post again. Then come back with the population of every year for Sweden. from 1901 to today. Same for the US. Then list the amount of Nobel Prizes won every single year from 1901 to today for both Sweden to US. After we have those numbers, then you can actually start comparing. I assure you Sweden did not have a 7 million population in 1901. Your statistical ability here is quite poor.

 

[Physicist5]

Interestingly, some 25 to 30 percent of these noble prize winners are Jewish, far in excess of their population percentage. Could this be the result of their highest IQ average of 117, which is as much above White as White is above Black?

 

[shonagon53]

Interestingly, some 25 to 30 percent of these noble prize winners are Jewish, far in excess of population percentage. Could this be the result of their highest IQ average of 117, which is as much above White as White is above Black?

No, I don't believe in the value of the notion of "IQ" if this implies "genetic superiority" or "racial superiority". I think Jews' success is due to the fact that Jews have a far denser social network and are a much more disciplined group, with a history of persecution, which tends to stimulate group cohesion.

It's basically a socio-cultural matter, nothing more.

"Intelligence" as a biological or evolutionary factor has to do with small variations stretching over hundreds of thousands of years, basically a geologic time-scale, in which ethnic identity as we know it plays no role whatsoever.


And please, see my "per capita" post; you will notice that the Barbarian Iceland Vikings are the smartest people on the planet. Now those Icelandic barbarians are clearly a race apart (sharp long straight noses -- anti-Jew noses -- tall, blue eyed, pale skinned, blonde and with heavy bones).

 

[Monique]

Even so 93 to 9 is a huge difference. Even after per capita taken into consideration.


Now all this is going off topic. I never stated that everyone that won a Nobel Prize in America is a native of America. My words were "dominating high education" Now if high intellectuals from other countries are choosing to go to America to do their research, that only further shows the truth to my statement that America is "dominating high education" Why else would intellectuals from other countries study and do their research in America if not for the better standards in high education?

It is not offtopic. I don't think the education is remarkably good, infact, it is reknown for the fact that it is easy and that european education is much more thorough. I've never studied any american courses so I have no way of knowing whether it is true.

It is also known that Americans do rather poorly in academia, and that foreigners take over that role. I've been in an American university and all I saw was immigrants. Also heresay. So why are all these people flocking to the US then?

Well, money is an issue. Since the US is such a large country, there is a large economy and there is a lot of grant money. Also, like I stated, many great figure heads moved to the US and people have been following them ever since to study under the wings of the great.

 

[loseyourname]

Damn. Everyone sure loves to jump on BlackVision, don't they? Just look at the university numbers again - forget the country numbers. That alone makes his point. Why are American universities winning all of the prizes? Surely this means something. I think I have the answer, too. Stanford, Harvard, and MIT were 1, 2, and 3 in the past 25 years. Their combined endowment is probably greater than the GNP of every one of those countries other than the US and UK. The universities with the most money build the best labs and attract the best researchers. And why should it be any different? They've earned the money they have by providing government and industry with highly qualified employees that consistently excel and attain positions of leadership.

 

[Monique]

The universities with the most money build the best labs and attract the best researchers. And why should it be any different? They've earned the money they have by providing government and industry with highly qualified employees that consistently excel and attain positions of leadership.

Right, money and status. That says nothing about undergraduate education for instance.

 

[loseyourname]

Right, money and status. That says nothing about undergraduate education for instance.

It says that the US has more to offer these researchers than their home country does.

 

[BlackVision]

Well, money is an issue. Since the US is such a large country, there is a large economy and there is a lot of grant money. Also, like I stated, many great figure heads moved to the US and people have been following them ever since to study under the wings of the great.

Even if money is the issue, that still doesn't change the fact that the US has higher standards in high education. Frankly I do not see many universities in the world that can rival Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech, and others. While Cambridge and Oxford in the UK are historically excellent universities, not even these universities would be at par with the above mentioned universities today.

 

[shonagon53]

Well, another point.

What do you think when people say that America is a society based on exclusivism and inequality, shown in its educational system?

The OECD recently issued a report (generally acclaimed to be of high value, and the U.S. is a founding country of the OECD) in which the U.S. ranks BELOW WORLD AVERAGE when it comes to the level of general education and educational access. (Yes, we too were shocked to read it, over here).

So one could conclude that when the U.S. spends money on a few top universities for the exclusive top elite (a super tiny minority), it does not spend it on general education and on increasing access to higher education for all.

This is typical for an exclusivist society.

If we take this factor into account and we combine a country's rank qua general education (the OECD stat) with the per capita number of Nobel Prize winners, the U.S. would come out even worse.


http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,2340,en_2649_37455_14152482_119656_1_1_37455,00.html

 

[marcus]

Even if money is the issue, that still doesn't change the fact that the US has higher standards in high education...

this is pretty interesting, it is good to have these stats
I went back to the article by Schoellhammer
http://aaawww.fh-pforzheim.de/intoff/iopub/NOBEL03/
I wanted to see what HE thought his statistics showed

we could discuss better some of the issues that were raised in the thread here if we had some other statistics besides Schoellhammer's
because his are very focused on what interests him.

I would like to know this:
if you graduate from HS in the Czech republic or Denmark or Portugal then do you have more or less chance of winning prize
than if you are HS grad from United States.
I think HS level of Math and Science education
is very important.

After that, one can travel around and go to best place one can for learning what one wants---and sometimes even get scholarship money to help.
I would like to know who is doing what right
in the education K-12
in science and math because that seems to me what is critical for what interests me.

However the major grad-school and research institutions of the US
are aweomely excellent and a great pride
and also they are populated with grad students and faculty who to a significant extent are not US-nationals----so they draw on the K-12 education systems of many countries (as one might expect)

 

[Monique]

Even if money is the issue, that still doesn't change the fact that the US has higher standards in high education.

Right, there are a few excellent universities. That doesn't at all mean that all universities are excellent. These universities have high standards BECAUSE they are excellent.

I'm serious though, I don't think US high schools have a very good reputation if you look at their curriculum. But again I'm not an expert.

 

[BlackVision]

I'm serious though, I don't think US high schools have a very good reputation if you look at their curriculum. But again I'm not an expert.

I agree that as far as K-12 education goes, there would be a handful of countries that perform better than the US. But I would say as far as high education goes, meaning "university level", the US is unrivaled.

 

[selfAdjoint]

It would be interesting to speculate on how the "second rate high schools" feed the "world class graduate schools" after only four years. Boy there must be something terrific about US unsergraduate education!

 

[Monique]

It would be interesting to speculate on how the "second rate high schools" feed the "world class graduate schools" after only four years. Boy there must be something terrific about US unsergraduate education!

But.. in these world class graduate schools, what is the ratio of American citizens to foreigners? Is it something about the education prior to graduate school that makes it good, or is something outside that that makes it good?

 

[FZ+]

What do you think when people say that America is a society based on exclusivism and inequality, shown in its educational system?

Probably, yes. If we combine the two threads (US has highest Nobel winners, but low levels of literacy on average, and a low proportional number of winners), we do get the impression that the US educational system stretches out the sample, creating a sort of smart/dumb rift in society. The best get better than average treatment, and the worst get neglected. Let's not even get started about the rise of creationism...

But it doesn't tell us whether an essentially elitist scheme is right, or not. The same evidence can be used to suggest that elitism 'works'. With the UK, it may be possible to blame the drop on the new emphasis to offer good education to all, rather than superb education to a select few. The figures as always offer many interpretations. Sociology is an inexact science.

 

[Monique]

Right, I think that is a major difference too: 'good education to all, rather than superb education to a select few'.

 

[huazi]

Are you sure you've got your numbers straight?

Cambridge have way more nobel prize winners than 23! Just Trinity college only had 31 nobel winners.

Have a look at the Cambridge University offical website for nobel winners:
http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/nobelprize.html

 

[Kurdt]

This is an interesting thread and I'd just like to point out another point I think is important. The drop in European nobel prize winners in the latter half of the twentieth century is probably due to the effect the second world war had on the countries involved. A lot of European countries had crippling war debts and severe infrastructure damage while the US was relatively unscathed. The UK still had to pay the US back for the weapons we'd 'loaned' during the war years.

Also when Germany finally surrendered a lot of top German scientists went to the US to continue their work there. Along with those other European scientists that had fled (many being pacifists) to the safe haven of the US before the war and after it.

So for the damaged European countries it was also very easy for them to stem money to higher education and channel it into the more needy rebuilding of infrastructure. The European economy has really just recovered so it will be interesting to see these stats again in 50 years to see if they go the other way or not.

 

[Gokul43201]

Does anyone have the stats? I think that before WOII European countries were infact getting more nobel prizes than the US and that this all changed after WOII due to the reason I mentioned.

A partial answer : The physics prize until the war (1901-1939), by country :

Germany - 10
UK - 10
USA - 6
France - 4
Netherlands - 4
Austria - 2
Italy - 2
Sweden - 2
Switzerland - 2
Denmark - 1
India - 1

Odd numbers, it seems, were not very popular!

Also, I suspect the Dutch word for 'war' begins with the letter O.

 

[loseyourname]

Jesus guys, this died two years ago.

Which is actually kind of hard to believe. I remember this thread like it happened yesterday.

Do you have numbers on how that changed specific to physics after the war, Gokul?

To Huazi, I'd like to say BlackVision's numbers were limited to the sciences, but his links aren't working any longer and he's been gone for a while now.

 

[J77]

I couldn't see it mentioned...

Nowadays, the reason for all the US winners is that the universities over there are very rich and can employ these great scientists from all over the world.

 

[Kurdt]

I didn't realize it was so old I apologise for starting it off again.

 

[Gokul43201]

Do you have numbers on how that changed specific to physics after the war, Gokul?

After the war (1943 -1970) : Physics Prize by Country*

USA - 23
Former USSR - 6
Germany - 5
UK - 5
France - 2
Japan - 2
Netherlands - 1
Sweden - 1
Denmark - 1

* Note : Both here, and in the previous list, I've listed the country where the Prize-winning work was done, not the country of birth. This is denoted by the label "Work Affiliation" (WA) - by the Nobel Prize website.

But short of doing a recount by country of birth, I'd say that over half the US Prize-winners were born in the US (eg : Bardeen, Brattain, Shockley, Lamb, Feynman, Schwinger, Gell-Mann - off the top of my head).

<more later>

 

[RealmDire]

Cambridge have way more nobel prize winners than 23! Just Trinity college only had 31 nobel winners.

Have a look at the Cambridge University offical website for nobel winners:
http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/nobelprize.html

The criteria that Cambridge uses on their website to count Nobel Prize is different than the criteria used on the first post. The criteria used on the first post seem to count only current staff members at the time instead of those that have been affiliates with the university at the past.