philosophy meta-forum

PGR IS UP

Dante

44 day(s) ago

This year, evaluators for subject-areas were not centrally chosen. Rather, any evaluator was able to rank any department in any subject-area.

I'm frankly baffled by the choices for the Kant evaluators. Melamed, Moyar, Novakovic, and O'Connor do German Idealism with little to no focus on Kant, and Clark and Crowell are Nietzsche scholars who as far as I can tell have no interest in Kant. And what's Dan Garber doing in there?

Yehuda

Pavel

Really? Interesting. That explains some of the weird outliers, although I'd have expected there to be *more* of those. Especially in some subfields.

Edmund

44 day(s) ago

UIC's ranking is not counting Sedgwick? I find that hard to believe.

Gary

44 day(s) ago

UIC's ranking is not counting Sedgwick? I find that hard to believe.

Edmund

I took the survey, Sedgwick is on the BU list, there was a post about her moving on Leiter's blog.

UIC has Sutherland, who is very good on Kant.

I might personally quibble a bit with some of the Kant rankings, but overall they are helpful and accurate. NYU (Longuenesse, Jauering), Stanford (Friedman, Anderson), and UCSD (Watkins, Allais) are clearly the top three. In the next group are Brown (Guyer, but he's in his 70s), Cambridge (Langton), Indiana (Wood, also in his 70s, but also Baron), and Johns Hopkins (Forster). I might not put Cambridge so high, but opinions will differ.

In the next group are Columbia (Pat Kitcher, but doing some work on Kant are also Honneth and Neuhouser), Oxford (Moore, Bader, Gomes, as noted earlier), Berkeley (Ginsborg, Warren), Penn (Chignell, Hafield), Pitt (Engstrom), St. Andrews/Stirling (Timmerman, maybe others, don't know that department well), and Toronto (Ripstein, Tenenbaum, Morrison a bit). Again, I'd quibble about St Andrews/Stirling, but I may not know as much as other evaluators. And now that Chignell is going to Princeton, that would probably drop Penn to the 3.0 group.

Gary

44 day(s) ago

For those who haven't taken the surveys, remember that the surveys do flag faculty who are 70 or older, and 75 or older. I imagine that has an effect on evaluations.

Nikolai

44 day(s) ago

Hilarious that age should be thought per se a factor in the assessment of scholarship on KANT!

Gerard

44 day(s) ago

Hilarious that age should be thought per se a factor in the assessment of scholarship on KANT!

Nikolai

What? The idea is that PhD students are going to spend 5-8 years at a program, if the main Kant person is 78, well, that's kind of relevant don't you think?

Cornel

44 day(s) ago

The Ancient rankings are ridiculous, as is the choice and number of evaluators. What a joke!

Anna

44 day(s) ago

Pity the grad students at Kansas. The only program that scored below adequate.

Kao

44 day(s) ago

The Ancient rankings are ridiculous, as is the choice and number of evaluators. What a joke!

Cornel

What's ridiculous about it? I mean, maybe Yale should be a little lower, but nothing about the list seems very surprising.

Walter

44 day(s) ago

Who gives a rat's ass

Mary

44 day(s) ago

Two of the eight evaluators for medieval philosophy specialize primarily in modern philosophy (Daniel Garber, Yitzhak Melamed).

For medieval philosophy, the list of "Additional programs not evaluated this year but recommended for consideration by the Advisory Board" is almost as lengthy as ranked programs: Boston College; Catholic University; Fordham University; Loyola University Chicago; Marquette University; University of South Florida; University of St. Thomas, Houston. I think part of the problem is what is meant by doing medieval philosophy. Original manuscript work? Philology? Textual criticism? Not all programs do well at teaching those skills.

Theodore

44 day(s) ago

Hilarious that age should be thought per se a factor in the assessment of scholarship on KANT!

Nikolai

What? The idea is that PhD students are going to spend 5-8 years at a program, if the main Kant person is 78, well, that's kind of relevant don't you think?

Gerard

Grace

44 day(s) ago

Ancient part 1:

Oxford: two notable people, Coope and Scott. The rest is unremarkable.

Yale: Inwood, Charles, Harte offer full range of approaches, incl. philology and so on. Harte is the best philosopher, Inwood is a classicist, Charles is a kind of Analytic Oxford breed something (like Crisp or Peramantzis at Oxford). So really two.

Princeton: two guys who think highly of themselves but not very original.

Toronto: serious four scholars, all first rate.

So Toronto is much better choice than any of these. The rest I need to hear why they are better than many.lower ranked besides past.glory and friends among evaluators.

Hippocrates

44 day(s) ago

Honestly? This can't actually be the case. What use are the specialty rankings then?

This year, evaluators for subject-areas were not centrally chosen. Rather, any evaluator was able to rank any department in any subject-area.

Aloysius

44 day(s) ago

So Toronto is much better choice than any of these.

Grace

That's a pretty ludicrous view, so I'm guessing you have some kind of personal connection to Toronto. This is a pretty stupid topic to argue about, though, so whatever.

Dagfinn

44 day(s) ago

So Toronto is much better choice than any of these.

Grace

That's a pretty ludicrous view, so I'm guessing you have some kind of personal connection to Toronto. This is a pretty stupid topic to argue about, though, so whatever.

Aloysius

That sums up this thread. Unidentified partisans piss on the rankings on behalf of their friends.

Theodore

44 day(s) ago

Lots of things are relevant. What if the main Kant person is 71? What if the young, rising Kant scholar is more liable to be poached in a year or two? What if they have an unhappy marriage and are especially liable to look elsewhere? What if he has a heart condition? That it would be ageism is relevant too. If we're targeting by demographics, what about evidence concerning the gender relevance of mathematical prowess, and what about the statistics about crime as it relates to race? What justifies us in highlighting age just because of the statistics as opposed to the specifics of that person's health and intentions? Can't students find out the specifics in their campus visits? Just wondering...

Theodore

44 day(s) ago

Hilarious that age should be thought per se a factor in the assessment of scholarship on KANT!

Nikolai

What? The idea is that PhD students are going to spend 5-8 years at a program, if the main Kant person is 78, well, that's kind of relevant don't you think?

Gerard

Theodore

44 day(s) ago

Hilarious that age should be thought per se a factor in the assessment of scholarship on KANT!

Nikolai

What? The idea is that PhD students are going to spend 5-8 years at a program, if the main Kant person is 78, well, that's kind of relevant don't you think?

Gerard

Theodore

44 day(s) ago

Lots of things are relevant. What if the main Kant person is 71? What if the young, rising Kant scholar is more liable to be poached in a year or two? What if they have an unhappy marriage and are especially liable to look elsewhere? What if he has a heart condition? That it would be ageism is relevant too. If we're targeting by demographics, what about evidence concerning the gender relevance of mathematical prowess, and what about the statistics about crime as it relates to race? What justifies us in highlighting age just because of the statistics as opposed to the specifics of that person's health and intentions? Can't students find out the specifics in their campus visits? Just wondering...

Luitzen

43 day(s) ago

Uh,Theodore, only one of those is a matter of public record.

Watsuji

43 day(s) ago

Highlighting it so prominently in that particular context makes a statement, as would highlighting gender or race. That statement weighs statistics inappropriately, as would racial or gender profiling.

Luitzen

43 day(s) ago

Highlighting it so prominently in that particular context makes a statement, as would highlighting gender or race. That statement weighs statistics inappropriately, as would racial or gender profiling.

Watsuji

Gender and race are, or ought to be, irrelevant. Age is different. Reality check.

Ruth

43 day(s) ago

So Toronto is much better choice than any of these.

Grace

That's a pretty ludicrous view, so I'm guessing you have some kind of personal connection to Toronto. This is a pretty stupid topic to argue about, though, so whatever.

Aloysius

But isn't ranking of departments precisely THAT topic? And isn't the kind of reasoning you criticise here the kind that is used in this ranking?

Emma

41 day(s) ago

Brian Kemple at Daily Snooze may be the most unselfaware person ever to comment there.

Blasius

41 day(s) ago

Highlighting it so prominently in that particular context makes a statement, as would highlighting gender or race. That statement weighs statistics inappropriately, as would racial or gender profiling.

Watsuji

Gender and race are, or ought to be, irrelevant. Age is different. Reality check.

Luitzen

Blasius

41 day(s) ago

Reality check? Here's the reality: Question begging is irrelevant, indeed idiotic.

Sandra

41 day(s) ago

Brian Kemple is hilarious.

Sir

41 day(s) ago

I'd love to see the size of those who rank the specialties increase. But I guess that won't happen in a lot of cases because (maybe?) the number of specialists who rank just depends on their proportion in the overall pool. And since a particular sub area (e.g., Chinese philosophy or philosophy of biology) might not be very big in the overall discipline, they didn't want to have too many evaluators from those areas, or they might distort the overall rankings. I guess. Is that the worry? The problem with the current approach is that you have to rely (in some cases) on folks in the overall pool who aren't really in the specialty area they're evaluating.

Empedocles

41 day(s) ago

How is it, for example, that Cincinnati is not even mentioned as a place at least "not evaluated but recommended by the board" for phil bio? They've got like four philosophers of biology there. I don't see how they're not as good as some of the other places that are ranked.

posts per page.