So many of these departments have restructured since 2011. It would be silly to read this list as reflective of the current state of things. Since 2011, Yale for example lost Alex Nemerov (now at Stanford), Christopher Wood (NYU), David Joselit (CUNY) and a handful of other untenured professors. Hopkins lost Michael Fried (retired), Herbert Kessler (retired) and Felipe Pereda (Harvard). The way the former two scholars shaped their respective fields can't be understated, and their students teach at a number of those 27 schools ranked above it on this list (Yale, Princeton, Chicago, Hopkins itself). That fact in and of itself calls the accuracy of this list into question, even in its own 2011 moment. It remains to be seen how a department like Hopkins or Yale will figure into our disciplinary future when things are changing so quickly. But the former has some bright junior faculty (Molly Warnock, Ünver Rüstem and what's certain to be a new placement in early modern), and the latter has enough money to land with its feet on the ground, although its unclear what exactly will happen in that regard.
Agree with Melatonin that MIT seems too low. Harvard seems too low, too, perversely. This list's top 10 doesn't seem totally inaccurate now, with the exception of UCLA (which I'd place a bit lower) and UNC (which I'd place decidedly lower.) A number of other schools lower down on the list might also easily compete for those top spots as well. MIT below Penn seems inaccurate; UT Austin below UNC seems inaccurate. Placement records attest to this. Field specificity is also important in certain cases. Look at how Asher's students at Minnesota have placed (Berkeley, Hopkins.) Or Saltzman at Bryn Mawr, who recently placed a student at Wisconsin--which is somehow ranked above CUNY (whose grads have been getting some really handsome post-docs recently) and Stanford, which now has Nemerov, Lee, Troy, Meyer and Pavle Levi--all of whom have placed their students well.