Why then have harvard and cambridge graduated such a incredibly large fraction of the worlds most productive and famous scientists and mathematicians? Can you please name the italian universities that have produce at the level of cambridge?
I think their point is that the best and brightest have a normal distribution across the world. Irrespective of how bright you are it is an incredibly unlikely event that _all_ these people will be able to have access or funds to start their university at 'elite' universities. Information and monetary assymetry is a thing.
To your point at least in the UK there is a sea of Italian academics from Bologna/Milan/Padua/Torino pursuing further studies or research positions in Oxbridge and other 'Golden Triangle' universities.
Having experienced average universities in my undergrad studies and 'elite' universities as a postgrad I have to seriously agree with GP:
> most great professors in important universities excel at funding, not teaching
The differentiating factor is that elite universities have a halo effect that makes it far more likely to secure funding. This allows for more ambitious projects and equally enables them to attract top talent.
> Why then have harvard and cambridge graduated such a incredibly large fraction of the worlds most productive and famous scientists and mathematicians?
They didn't graduated most of them, they employed them, (e.g. the most recent Nobel recipient Penrose).
Out of 121 Nobel recipients from Cambridge most came from universities you never heard of.
Also: funding.
Academia works like that: the more you publish the more money you get => the more you can research and publish => the more money you get and so on.
Thus hubs that historically did well, will keep attracting more funds and outscore other universities.
