Anonymous wrote:The ranking is flawed. For STEM awards, they divide the number of awards by the number of alumni. Caltech obviously gets a boost because everyone is on STEM field, whereas for the other schools that's not true. A more meaningful ranking would divide the number of STEM awards by the number of STEM graduates and not by the number of total graduates.

There are a LOT bigger problems with the rankings than just this. The knowledge that goes into getting a nobel prize or any kind of award, let alone even being a coauthor on a run-of-the-mill research paper, is attributable to the DOCTORAL INSTITUTION, not the UNDERGRAD institution. No quality research comes out of liberal arts schools so this ranking is immediately not even passing the basic sniff test.

The ranking is flawed. For STEM awards, they divide the number of awards by the number of alumni. Caltech obviously gets a boost because everyone is on STEM field, whereas for the other schools that's not true. A more meaningful ranking would divide the number of STEM awards by the number of STEM graduates and not by the number of total graduates.

In the early 2010s I worked as a researcher/consultant on a project that examined this very question. It was based upon a formula agreed upon by the client and a panel of well known experts. I can't remember the exact factors, but it examined each University's influence in their field - articles published, number of citations, meta click data and a few other things. The findings showed that US scientific influence was incredibly east and west coast dominated by - in no particular order - MIT, Harvard, CalTach, UC Berkeley and Stanford. The next somewhat distant tier would be Columbia, University of Chicago and University of Michigan. Funding had a lot to do with the success of these particular institutions. Technology, Computer Science and Pharmaceutical Advancements were at he top of the list for the US. Europe, Australia and the UK lead in areas related to the natural sciences and environment. It was a fascinating study that was never published - but it showed me how powerful business and pharmaceutical companies are in determining what areas of research are funded, and therefore dominant, in the US.

Anonymous wrote:No Duke? Notre Dame? Georgetown?

They're not exactly 1st tier when it comes to producing top-tier scientists. Maybe the sole exception is Duke, but its grad departments (biochem, bioengineering, biostat, medical school) are nothing like undergrad.

No Duke? Notre Dame? Georgetown?

There’s a rich history of super-smart, accomplished alumni of CUNY. Most were children of Jewish immigrants who were driven to excel and it was a during a time when the Ivy League was out of reach for those kids, both financially and demographically. I am sure there are still many smart first generation students there but now that the Ivies and MIT and Caltech are more accessible and have more cachet, the smart first gens aim for those schools instead.