Re:Academia's 1%
by ChrisLomont on Saturday March 07, 2015 @07:06PM
(#9163734)
>Scientific breakthroughts historically do not favor top rate institutions.
What proof of this do you have? Quick looks over Nobel Prizes, Fields Medals, or even lists of top scientific breakthroughs demonstrate that top rate universities do produce far more scientific breakthroughs than other universities.
How frequently do those people move to those universities after they've made the scientific breakthrough for which they receive the award?
Re:Academia's 1%
by ChrisLomont on Wednesday March 11, 2015 @12:40PM
(#9184963)
For Nobel Prizes, it's abundantly clear that people from and/or working at top schools win them vastly more than small schools by people that were at the school when the work was done. [1] Harvard has around 150. Many of the top schools have around 100. Ohio State, despite being much bigger [2,3], has 4, and is much more in line with most state (right below top tier) schools.
If you want to challenge that the top schools have much more productive researchers (and those making significant breakthroughs) on average, feel free to present evidence. Any metric I can find for which I can get enough information implies otherwise.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_univ...
Let's face it. The "top" students that Harvard and Stanford accept are past experts at gaming the system. They are total believer in and are totally committed to climbing the existing social-economic hiearchy. They worship the authorities, are perfectly content in following established lines of research, and pad themselves in the back when they re-search past results to apply to an arcane area, which in all probability ten people are ever going to find interesting and never useful. They are the perfect sheeps pretending to be lions.
Talk about entitlement.