PGR rankings

[AcademicX]

After reading the discussion in the Acceptance thread, I decided to start a thread about the PGR rankings. Given my interests, it is natural that the questions that I would like to discuss are related to the relevance of Leiter's rankings to people who want to pursue work in continental philosophy. For that reason, I would like people to attempt to answer the original questions of this post first. With that said, I think that this should be a space where everyone can talk about all aspects of the PGR rankings freely.

 

I don't really have an opinion about the PGR rankings as a whole. However, I've noticed that, while most people here seem to agree that the overall rankings are of little use (e.g., because they lump many subfields together and do not reflect the strength of a given department regarding the student's particular interests), the same people always talk about schools in terms top-20 or top-10 (which perpetuates the idea that the overall rankings are relevant).

 

Like perpetuavix made clear, there is no meaningful correlation between overall PGR rankings and TT placements (the Rsquared values of a linear regression is .17-.18). This statistics already account for the time interval between the year of the ranking and the year the students enter the job market. While some have correctly argued that other positions (post-doc, adjunct, lecturer) should also be accounted for, I believe that most of us are shooting for TT positions (at least that was the main argument in favor of following the PGR rankings in the first place). 

 

Besides these thoughts about the rankings as a whole, I also have concerns about the rankings' relevance for students who want to pursue work in continental philosophy. The first thing that comes to mind, is the Leiter's obvious bias against continental philosophy (and particularly, the work associated with the Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy, a.k.a. SPEP). If anyone disagrees with this statement, I will gladly take the time to quote the several times that Leiter made his bias explicit (and, trust me, Dr. Leiter is a very outspoken person in the internet, so this is no difficult work). Given my first claim, it is clear that schools that have more people working in continental philosophy (and particularly, those departments associated with SPEP) will have lower rankings because that is not the kind of philosophy that counts for Leiter. Obviously, Leiter doesn't create the rankings on his own (or at least, not anymore. See http://rgheck.frege.org/philosophy/aboutpgr.php). Even then, his choice of evaluators for 19th and 20th century continental philosophy doesn't include a single member of SPEP (the 2nd largest philosophical organization in the US and, in spite of Leiter's opinion, a major player in the field of continental philosophy). Moreover, as this blog shows (http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/12/2011-pgr-20th-c-cp-board.html#comments), the choice of evaluators privileges the German tradition (mainly German idealism), with only a few people who specialize in contemporary French philosophy. There are many more evaluators who have French philosophy as a secondary interest, but they barely publish anything on these "interests" (out of 22 evaluators with such AOI, there are only 7 articles published by 5 individuals). Leiter's response (also in the same blog) is that the evaluators need not be experts in the field in order to evaluate it. You may disagree with me, but I think that the whole point of the PGR rankings was to give "expert advise" about the quality of philosophy departments in particular areas. Like Professor McAfee argues here (http://gonepublic.net/2011/11/15/the-favorites-favorites-another-round-of-pgr-rankings-of-continental-philosophy/), " t’s hard enough for someone who specializes in a field to keep abreast — in addition to his or her own work — to all the work that all the other people in their field are doing year by year, especially if given a list of 90 programs to evaluate." 

 

For that reason, I don't think that even the specialty rankings are useful for students of continental philosophy (especially those whose primary interest is not German idealism). It's funny how Leiter claims that Kant is a continental figure, while he considers that Kristeva and Badiou wouldn't be taught in any serious philosophy department (see links above). 

 

Finally, I would like to share again the link that Monadology posted in a different thread.

http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2013/10/02/Will-I-get-a-Job-Graduate-School-Philosophy-Placement-Records.aspx

 

I am not sure what the criticisms of this study are, so I would love to hear about them. I find it really usuful, if not a little deceiving because programs like Penn State get a .96 ratio of current TT positions because the data is drawn from a "summary of placements", which most probably excludes those who were unable to secure such positions. That said, the study shows that a lot of SPEPy departments have healthy placement records (e.g. Boston College has 82%, Stony Brook 75% and Villanova 71% TT placement record with all their data available for the study) 

 

Well this is all for now. I am sorry if this post is too long and of tangential interest to the analytically oriented in this forum.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Johannes14

[dgswaim]

After reading the discussion in the Acceptance thread, I decided to start a thread about the PGR rankings. Given my interests, it is natural that the questions that I would like to discuss are related to the relevance of Leiter's rankings to people who want to pursue work in continental philosophy. For that reason, I would like people to attempt to answer the original questions of this post first. With that said, I think that this should be a space where everyone can talk about all aspects of the PGR rankings freely.

 

I don't really have an opinion about the PGR rankings as a whole. However, I've noticed that, while most people here seem to agree that the overall rankings are of little use (e.g., because they lump many subfields together and do not reflect the strength of a given department regarding the student's particular interests), the same people always talk about schools in terms top-20 or top-10 (which perpetuates the idea that the overall rankings are relevant).

 

Like perpetuavix made clear, there is no meaningful correlation between overall PGR rankings and TT placements (the Rsquared values of a linear regression is .17-.18). This statistics already account for the time interval between the year of the ranking and the year the students enter the job market. While some have correctly argued that other positions (post-doc, adjunct, lecturer) should also be accounted for, I believe that most of us are shooting for TT positions (at least that was the main argument in favor of following the PGR rankings in the first place). 

 

Besides these thoughts about the rankings as a whole, I also have concerns about the rankings' relevance for students who want to pursue work in continental philosophy. The first thing that comes to mind, is the Leiter's obvious bias against continental philosophy (and particularly, the work associated with the Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy, a.k.a. SPEP). If anyone disagrees with this statement, I will gladly take the time to quote the several times that Leiter made his bias explicit (and, trust me, Dr. Leiter is a very outspoken person in the internet, so this is no difficult work). Given my first claim, it is clear that schools that have more people working in continental philosophy (and particularly, those departments associated with SPEP) will have lower rankings because that is not the kind of philosophy that counts for Leiter. Obviously, Leiter doesn't create the rankings on his own (or at least, not anymore. See http://rgheck.frege.org/philosophy/aboutpgr.php). Even then, his choice of evaluators for 19th and 20th century continental philosophy doesn't include a single member of SPEP (the 2nd largest philosophical organization in the US and, in spite of Leiter's opinions, a major player in the field of continental philosophy). Moreover, as this blog shows (http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/12/2011-pgr-20th-c-cp-board.html#comments), the choice of evaluators privileges the German tradition (mainly German idealism), with only a few people who specialize in contemporary French philosophy. There many more evaluators who have French philosophy as a secondary interest, but they barely publish anything on these "interests" (out of 22 evaluators with such AOI, there are only 7 articles published by 5 individuals). Leiter's response (also in the same blog) is that the evaluators need not be experts in the field in order to evaluate it. You may disagree with me, but I think that the whole point of the PGR rankings was to give "expert advise" about the quality of philosophy departments in particular areas. Like Professor McAfee argues here (http://gonepublic.net/2011/11/15/the-favorites-favorites-another-round-of-pgr-rankings-of-continental-philosophy/), " t’s hard enough for someone who specializes in a field to keep abreast — in addition to his or her own work — to all the work that all the other people in their field are doing year by year, especially if given a list of 90 programs to evaluate." 

 

For that reason, I don't think that even the specialty rankings are useful for students of continental philosophy (especially those whose primary interest is not German idealism). It's funny how Leiter claims that Kant is a continental figure, while he considers that Kristeva and Badiou wouldn't be taught in any serious philosophy department (see links above). 

 

Finally, I would like to share again the link that Monadology posted in a different thread.

http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2013/10/02/Will-I-get-a-Job-Graduate-School-Philosophy-Placement-Records.aspx

 

I am not sure what the criticisms of this study are, so I would love to hear about them. I find it really usuful, if not a little deceiving because programs like Penn State get a .96 ratio of current TT positions because the data is drawn from a "summary of placements", which most probably excludes those who were unable to secure such positions. That said, the study shows that a lot of SPEPy departments have healthy placement records (e.g. Boston College has 82%, Stony Brook 75% and Villanova 71% TT placement record with all their data available for the study) 

 

Well this is all for now. I am sorry if this post is too long and of tangential interest to the analytically oriented in this forum.

Did he really say that about Badiou? I'm not even of a particularly continental leaning and I find that statement utterly absurd.

[Establishment]

Did he really say that about Badiou? I'm not even of a particularly continental leaning and I find that statement utterly absurd.

 

Time to make the profile: badiousucks

[AcademicX]

From http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/12/2011-pgr-20th-c-cp-board.html#comments (see the first comment by "Brian")

 

" [...]The one point I do agree with you on is that none of these people are interested in Irigaray, Kristeva, Badiou et al. (some are interested in Deleuze). But I think anyone interested mainly in those figures should probably not be going to a philosophy department anyway for a PhD."

 

Leiter often engages in blog bickering (if not verbal abuse, see the first comment here http://gonepublic.net/2014/02/11/pgr-participation-drops-39/) with people who disagree with him, and he uses Brian as his username. As much as I really wanted to go to UChicago, I am kind of glad that my chances of ever talking to him are lower now.

[dgswaim]

I'm not as familiar with Julia Kristeva, but I've done some limited work on Irigaray and Badiou relative to certain questions in philosophy of religion (religious epistemology, in particular), and I found their work both engaging and rigorous. Come on Leiter...

[TheVineyard]

This again.

There are actually relatively strong correlations related to hiring and especially quality of hire. http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2013/10/11/Graduate-School-Philosophy-Placement-The-Leiter-Report.aspx
 

 

 As much as I really wanted to go to UChicago, I am kind of glad that my chances of ever talking to him are lower now.

 

All I can say: Sour Grapes. The sourest grapes ever.

[bar_scene_gambler]

From http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/12/2011-pgr-20th-c-cp-board.html#comments (see the first comment by "Brian")

 

" [...]The one point I do agree with you on is that none of these people are interested in Irigaray, Kristeva, Badiou et al. (some are interested in Deleuze). But I think anyone interested mainly in those figures should probably not be going to a philosophy department anyway for a PhD."

 

Leiter often engages in blog bickering (if not verbal abuse, see the first comment here http://gonepublic.net/2014/02/11/pgr-participation-drops-39/) with people who disagree with him, and he uses Brian as his username. As much as I really wanted to go to UChicago, I am kind of glad that my chances of ever talking to him are lower now.

I sort of share your sentiment, but for different reasons. The faculty at my uni who have met the man have all pretty much said he's a rather pugnacious self-important dick. Plus I've been told that he and Pippin don't get along so well, which would have been bad news for my dissertation work. 

[MattDest]

So, is this a thread about the PGR rankings or a thread where we personally insult Brian Leiter? 

[AcademicX]

This again.

There are actually relatively strong correlations related to hiring and especially quality of hire. http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2013/10/11/Graduate-School-Philosophy-Placement-The-Leiter-Report.aspx

 

 

 

All I can say: Sour Grapes. The sourest grapes ever.

 

Are you the reincarnation of Leiter? If so, given your comments regarding the climate for women in philosophy, rape culture and this unnecessary personal attack, you're on a good track. 

 

After reading that link, all I can say is that, PGR rankings only account for over 50% of TT placement. And that only if we choose to take out the 6 outliers. Now, taking 6 statistics out of a data set of 50 is a very objectionable choice. If we included the outliers, the explanatory force of PGR ranking would drop from 57% to 24% for the 7-year GAP regression.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Johannes14

[Cottagecheeseman]

So, is this a thread about the PGR rankings or a thread where we personally insult Brian Leiter? 

Crap no more upvotes to give but I love this comment.

[bar_scene_gambler]

No, that wasn't really my point. I have my own qualms with the PGR, but they're separate from why I personally dislike the idea of working with Leiter. I was merely agreeing with Johannes. And one or two comments certainly doesn't change the environment of the entire thread.

[dgswaim]

I find what Leiter does to be very useful. I read his rankings and his blog. But I do fear that people can forget that his rankings don't capture everything one might want to know about a given department: placement, quality of teaching, supportiveness of the faculty, department atmosphere (i.e. open mindedness, pluralism, etc.), funding for travel to conferences, and so on etc. 

 

Also, I tend to disagree with Leiter (somewhat) in his assessment of much of the work being done in contemporary european philosophy. But it probably isn't fair to say he has a thoroughgoing bias against the continental tradition tout court. I mean... he is a Nietzsche guy, right?

[Table]

Like perpetuavix made clear, there is no meaningful correlation between overall PGR rankings and TT placements (the Rsquared values of a linear regression is .17-.18). This statistics already account for the time interval between the year of the ranking and the year the students enter the job market. While some have correctly argued that other positions (post-doc, adjunct, lecturer) should also be accounted for, I believe that most of us are shooting for TT positions (at least that was the main argument in favor of following the PGR rankings in the first place). 

 

...

 

Finally, I would like to share again the link that Monadology posted in a different thread.

http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2013/10/02/Will-I-get-a-Job-Graduate-School-Philosophy-Placement-Records.aspx

 

I am not sure what the criticisms of this study are, so I would love to hear about them. I find it really usuful, if not a little deceiving because programs like Penn State get a .96 ratio of current TT positions because the data is drawn from a "summary of placements", which most probably excludes those who were unable to secure such positions. That said, the study shows that a lot of SPEPy departments have healthy placement records (e.g. Boston College has 82%, Stony Brook 75% and Villanova 71% TT placement record with all their data available for the study) 

 

I think it's premature to say that "there is no meaningful correlation between overall PGR rankings and TT placements." The phil news analysis of how well its placement rankings match the Leiter rankings seems to disagree: when he compared Leiter faculty rankings from 2002-2007 to tenure-track/permanent placement rankings from 2008-2013 (a 6 year gap to try to capture rankings of the faculties the students entered under), he found that faculty ranking could explain about 31% of the initial tenure-track/permanent placement ranking and 25% of current tt/perm placement rankings. The latter went up to 58% when he excluded 6 obvious positive outliers (schools with placement rankings significantly higher than their faculty rankings—Yale, UMass Amherst, Washington, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, and Mizzou). 

 

People have linked to Leiter's criticisms of the phil news analysis. As far as I can tell, the phil news analysis was updated in light of all of Leiter's criticisms—it now uses old rankings, as suggested, and at the bottom of the pg there's an added analysis of placement into phd departments in specific. Leiter also says the phil news analysis is not counting any american grads who got "lecturer" positions at UK schools. I'm not sure where they got that from, but the methods page does say the "tenure track" category included "permanent lecturers." Maybe this is still a problem, but it's not obvious to me that it is.

 

One thing that does seem odd is that he has OSU with 100% of initial placements into lecturer/temporary positions from 2000-2013, while the APA's guide has them placing 4 grads into tenure track jobs from 2008-2013, so I'm not sure what's up with that. 

 

 

After reading that link, all I can say is that, PGR rankings only account for over 50%. And that only if we choose to take out the 6 outliers. Now, taking 6 statistics out of a data set of 50 is a very objectionable choice. 

I'm not yet sure how I feel about excluding the outliers, but uh "only over 50%" is a lot.

 

One thing that's worth noting is that 2/6 of the outliers have risen significantly in the Leiter rankings: Yale moved from an average of 22 from 2002-2008 to 7 in 2011, and Northwestern moved from an average of 50 from 2002-2008 to 31 in 2011. It makes sense that these graduates might have acquired more of that leiter "glow" as their schools moved up, affecting their current more than their initial placements.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Table

[Establishment]

Are you the reincarnation of Leiter? If so, given your comments regarding the climate for women in philosophy, rape culture and this unnecessary personal attack, you're on a good track.

 

This is an absolutely disgusting and inaccurate characterization of Leiter.

[MattDest]

No, that wasn't really my point. I have my own qualms with the PGR, but they're separate from why I personally dislike the idea of working with Leiter. I was merely agreeing with Johannes. And one or two comments certainly doesn't change the environment of the entire thread.

 

I'm not a fan of personal smearing on the basis of hearsay and rumor, even if it is done under the guise of "agreeing" with someone else. 

[bar_scene_gambler]

I'm not a fan of personal smearing on the basis of hearsay and rumor, even if it is done under the guise of "agreeing" with someone else. 

It's not really hearsay or rumor to call the man pugnacious or self-important. In fact, it's fairly public knowledge, given that all you have to do is revisit some of his posts on his own blog. But, it's neither here nor there. It wasn't particularly useful nor appropriate for me to have said anything, so I apologize if I've offended you.

Edited March 3, 2014 by bar_scene_gambler

[dgswaim]

This is all my fault for having suggested that rankings not be taken so seriously. I regret it now. 

[bar_scene_gambler]

I find what Leiter does to be very useful. I read his rankings and his blog. But I do fear that people can forget that his rankings don't capture everything one might want to know about a given department: placement, quality of teaching, supportiveness of the faculty, department atmosphere (i.e. open mindedness, pluralism, etc.), funding for travel to conferences, and so on etc. 

 

Also, I tend to disagree with Leiter (somewhat) in his assessment of much of the work being done in contemporary european philosophy. But it probably isn't fair to say he has a thoroughgoing bias against the continental tradition tout court. I mean... he is a Nietzsche guy, right?

He is, but he's a special kind of Nietzsche guy. It's funny how things can be so divided, even within such a small field as Nietzsche scholarship.

[Monadology]

This is all my fault for having suggested that rankings not be taken so seriously. I regret it now. 

 

Don't worry, you've flushed out the heretics. It saves time on the purging.

[AcademicX]

I take back the comparison between Dr. Leiter and Vineyard. I did not mean to imply that Leiter was a misogynistic jerk or anything like that. My criticism of his methodology concerning continental philosophy remains, however. 

 

I think it's premature to say that "there is no meaningful correlation between overall PGR rankings and TT placements." The phil news analysis of how well its placement rankings match the Leiter rankings seems to disagree: when he compared Leiter faculty rankings from 2002-2007 to tenure-track/permanent placement rankings from 2008-2013 (a 6 year gap to try to capture rankings of the faculties the students entered under), he found that faculty ranking could explain about 31% of the initial tenure-track/permanent placement ranking and 25% of current tt/perm placement rankings. The latter went up to 58% when he excluded 6 obvious positive outliers (schools with placement rankings significantly higher than their faculty rankings—Yale, UMass Amherst, Washington, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, and Mizzou). 

 

People have linked to Leiter's criticisms of the phil news analysis. As far as I can tell, the phil news analysis was updated in light of all of Leiter's criticisms—it now uses old rankings, as suggested, and at the bottom of the pg there's an added analysis of placement into phd departments in specific. Leiter also says the phil news analysis is not counting any american grads who got "lecturer" positions at UK schools. I'm not sure where they got that from, but the methods page does say the "tenure track" category included "permanent lecturers." Maybe this is still a problem, but it's not obvious to me that it is.

 

One thing that does seem odd is that he has OSU with 100% of initial placements into lecturer/temporary positions from 2000-2013, while the APA's guide has them placing 4 grads into tenure track jobs from 2008-2013, so I'm not sure what's up with that. 

 

 

I'm not yet sure how I feel about excluding the outliers, but uh "only over 50%" is a lot.

 

One thing that's worth noting is that 2/6 of the outliers have risen significantly in the Leiter rankings: Yale moved from an average of 22 from 2002-2008 to 7 in 2011, and Northwestern moved from an average of 50 from 2002-2008 to 31 in 2011. It makes sense that these graduates might have acquired more of that leiter "glow" as their schools moved up, affecting their current more than their initial placements.

As to this, I take your point. However, I am not sure if this proves that non-ranked departments will be detrimental in your chances of getting a TT position.

[Establishment]

It's not really hearsay or rumor to call the man pugnacious or self-important. In fact, it's fairly public knowledge, given that all you have to do is revisit some of his posts on his own blog. But, it's neither here nor there. It wasn't particularly useful nor appropriate for me to have said anything, so I apologize if I've offended you.

 

Despite the appearances of his blog, I've heard very pleasant things about how Leiter actually is in person.

[bar_scene_gambler]

In an effort to be more constructive, I'll just copy over what I said in the other thread TLDR; I think it's mostly the philosophical climate that's the problem, not the ranking system:


To be fair, I don't think it's a coincidence that the placement rate at the schools you're talking about is less impressive than Leiter ranked programs. We all know that the US philosophical climate is notoriously analytic, and we know that there's some controversy over the PGR ignoring good, but more continental programs. Personally, I think it boils down to philosophical climate more than the programs themselves not being quality programs. Take Emory for example. It's a pluralistic school, with heavy continental leaning, which has a pretty good placement record and the resources available to give graduate students a solid education in philosophy, and yet it is completely unranked.

The problem is the climate, not the PGR itself. The PGR is going to rank schools based upon the philosophical climate in the US, and if more people are being placed out of analytic departments, it's more than likely because more departments are looking for, say, logicians and philosophers of science than aestheticians or people who work in Phenomenology. It isn't because the continental schools don't provide a good education, it's that those things which we're studying don't mesh well with the way philosophy is done in the US.

That isn't to say that the PGR is totally blameless. After all, it's not like there aren't fantastic continental schools. The "What the Rankings Mean" section may be chock full of utter bullshit, and the rankings may be biased, but that doesn't make the PGR useless, and it certainly isn't an unjustified bias. That's just my two-cents.

[bar_scene_gambler]

Despite the appearances of his blog, I've heard very pleasant things about how Leiter actually is in person.

I have to admit, it's been a mixed bag on my end. A few of the grad students at Chicago spoke well of him, but a large portion of the faculty at my uni and scholars I've met elsewhere say the opposite. It could be that (shockingly) the man is human and people will tell you different things about him.

[Establishment]

I take back the comparison between Dr. Leiter and Vineyard. I did not mean to imply that Leiter was a misogynistic jerk or anything like that. My criticism of his methodology concerning continental philosophy remains, however. 

 

As to this, I take your point. However, I am not sure if this proves that non-ranked departments will be detrimental in your chances of getting a TT position.

 

Depends on your definition of detrimental. Obviously students coming from lower ranked programs can get TT positions, but it seems they have to put in more work for it. For instance, students from top-10 programs can snag TT positions at top-ranked research universities without a publication history. Students from lower ranked students are going to have to be published in order to be as competitive.

[MattDest]

It's not really hearsay or rumor to call the man pugnacious or self-important. In fact, it's fairly public knowledge, given that all you have to do is revisit some of his posts on his own blog. But, it's neither here nor there. It wasn't particularly useful nor appropriate for me to have said anything, so I apologize if I've offended you.

 

I don't like to drag things out, but you didn't say that you felt he was pugnacious or self-important because of his blog, you said "The faculty at my uni who have met the man have all pretty much said he's a rather pugnacious self-important dick." I'm not offended (why would I be offended?), but having met Leiter and found him to be a nice guy, I just think it's unreasonable to form opinions on whether or not you would like to work with someone based on rumors you've heard about him (or from posts on his blog).