I’ve sort of have had the Nobel on my mind since to teachers at my university one the award just recently and am currently in a little where we are reading 6 nobel wining Novelist and am in a another class devoted to a Nobel prize winner (the teacher I am taking this class with as translated a number of this author’s work)
So how dose the academy pick the winners?
I know that a person must be nominated to be considered for the prize, but I’m not entirely sure what criteria the academy uses from there.
From what I remember for the literature prize, there’s a blue-ribbon jury who makes the determination. Names are submitted, and they can also make their own suggestions (not anyone on the jury, of course). Then they hash it out, read the author’s work (usually), and come to a consensus.
Yeah i know bad form to resurrect your own thread but, i realized, i did not ask the question i wanted the first time and I figured if started a new thread this one would be brought up. So anyway…
What are the criteria used by the academy to decide who gets the noble prize?
How exactly do they decide to give the award Toni Morison over Kenzaburo Oe one year and then deicide to give to Oe the next instead of oh let’s say Gunter Grass?
Or why did they give the award in physics this year to David J. Gross, H. David Politzer, Frank Wilczek when Steven Hawking hasn’t still hasn’t won it?
P.S. just for sake of it, why is the Nobel regarded as the most prestigious award in the world for in the fields it is given out in?
Do they go for diversity? I want Phillip Roth to win for Literature but I feel that there’s been so many Jewish writers writing about Jews and Jewish topics. A Hungarian Holocaust survivor won two years ago I believe. (And of course there’s Elie Wiesel, Isaac Bashevis Singer…). Roth’s position’s a little unique (American Jewish life) but he’s only got so many years left in him.
This one I can answer: the Physics prize is, in general, only given to theorists (like Hawking) after there has been a helluva lot of experimental confirmation of their predictions. Gross, Politzer and Wilczek (all pretty damn smart guys) won the prize last year for work they did in 1973; it took over thirty years for the fairly conservative Nobel Prize committee to decide that there’s enough experimental evidence to justify giving them the prize, even though nobody has seriously doubted that their predictions describe the real world for the last 15 years or so.
Hawking’s major theoretical predictions, on the other hand, are not likely to be verified in the lifetimes of anyone living today. We’re unlikely to directly observe Hawking radiation from a black hole, since we really can’t effectively build laboratories to study black holes the way we can to study, say, the proton. As smart as Hawking is, I would be willing to bet that he’ll never win a Nobel Prize (remember, the committee doesn’t give the award posthumously) — but I would be happy to be proven wrong at some point down the road.
