PGR rankings

[AcademicX]

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.

What is your evidence for these claims? I don't mean to be critical; just trying to keep our arguments substantiated. It also seems unfair to privilege TT positions at top-ranked research universities (assuming you're talking about PGR rankings) over other TT positions. It's clear that top-Leiter-ranked programs will seek to hire from other top-Leiter ranked programs because they specialize in the same things (e.g. departments that privilege philosophy of mind and phil science are going to hire people from top-Leiter programs; they wouldn't find anyone with that AOS at continental-oriented schools). Moreover, there are fewer continental positions that analytic ones (especially in leiter-ranked programs), so it makes sense that PhDs with an AOS in continental philosophy have a harder time finding a TT job. But this is more a product of the state of the philosophy profession in the US than of the graduate programs' quality. 

Edited March 3, 2014 by Johannes14

[bar_scene_gambler]

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). 

I take your point. All things being equal, I don't think he'd be good to work with given the nature of his Nietzsche scholarship itself, but it doesn't help alleviate one's worries to read his blog or to hear others talk negatively about the man. It wasn't what I said originally, but that's really how I feel. It's good to know that you aren't upset though. 

[dgswaim]

Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking declared the uselessness of philosophy altogether. Can we unite and attack those guys?

[Table]

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

 

I agree—he's only looking at leiter ranked programs there—especially for continental phil.  There's a separate phil news analysis of placement for continental programs, looking at 16 leiter-unranked programs. A large number of placement for these schools was unknown, making interpretation difficult, but 48% of the known initial placements were into tenure-track positions. 

[Establishment]

What is your evidence for these claims? I don't mean to be critical; just trying to keep our arguments substantiated.

 

I tried to find it earlier today but didn't have too much luck. It was a discussion on Leiter and maybe some other blogs. I remember some professors/grad students complaining about these findings because they felt this was an unfair privilege. It's pretty reminiscent of Eric Schwitzgebel's findings on undergraduate prestige and PhD prestige admission. People were complaining that top universities were hiring these unpublished students because of some illegitimate belief that they had some inner, unknown potential for greatness compared to published students from lower programs who might be seen as safer by having a published track record, but less exciting picks.

 

It also seems unfair to privilege TT positions at top-ranked research universities (assuming you're talking about PGR rankings) over other TT positions. It's clear that top-Leiter-ranked programs will seek to hire from other top-Leiter ranked programs because they specialize in the same things (e.g. departments that privilege philosophy of mind and phil science are going to hire people from top-Leiter programs; they wouldn't find anyone with that AOS at continental-oriented schools). Moreover, there are fewer continental positions that analytic ones (especially in leiter-ranked programs), so it makes sense that PhDs with an AOS in continental philosophy have a harder time finding a TT job. But this is more a product of the state of the philosophy profession in the US than of the graduate programs' quality. 

 

I think this is exactly my point. Prestige isn't anything objective, if we're just thinking like someone off the street. Prestige is always relative to some community. As a hopeful analytic philosopher, I belong to the community of analytic philosophers which I believe the PGR purports to represent, which is sorta what you've just claimed. I make no claims that the PGR is relevant for continentalists. So yes, what you've just said, I agree with, and is completely my point. Top-Leiter-ranked programs will seek to hire from other top-Leiter ranked programs. Which is why I, and the majority of us philosophers, value the PGR so much, because it has some influence on our potential hiring success.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Establishment

[Monadology]

I think one of the reasons it matters that the PGR doesn't adequately represent the "continentalists" is that at worst, this leads to detrimental effects for those interested in continental philosophy (as a result of the fact that the status of the PGR in discourse about philosophy programs is as a ranking of philosophy programs and not analytic philosophy programs, no matter what disclaimers might be included in the site) and at best it propagates a still problematic sociological divide between 'analytics' and 'continentals' (for instance if "continentalists" created their own PGR equivalent).

 

Finally, it seems to definitely parallel Leiter's own biases about continental philosophy done in a way he doesn't like and this is further reflected in who is selected to appraise the strength of programs in continental philosophy. So unless the PGR only purports to be a ranking of analytic-philosophy-and-continental-philosophy-the-way-Brian-Leiter-likes-it, it's clearly an issue that needs fixing.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Monadology

[dgswaim]

I think one of the reasons it matters that the PGR doesn't adequately represent the "continentalists" is that at worst, this leads to detrimental effects for those interested in continental philosophy (as a result of the fact that the status of the PGR in discourse about philosophy programs is as a ranking of philosophy programs and not analytic philosophy programs, no matter what disclaimers might be included in the site) and at best it propagates a still problematic sociological divide between 'analytics' and 'continentals' (for instance if "continentalists" created their own PGR equivalent).

 

Finally, it seems to definitely parallel Leiter's own biases about continental philosophy done in a way he doesn't like and this is further reflected in who is selected to appraise the strength of programs in continental philosophy. So unless the PGR only purports to be a ranking of analytic-philosophy-and-continental-philosophy-the-way-Brian-Leiter-likes-it, it's clearly an issue that needs fixing.

I think it's more than a little insulting when he makes claims to the effect that people doing work on Derrida, Badiou (apparently), Bataille, etc., should be relegated to literature departments. He often then goes further to insult the work being done by people in literature departments.

 

Edit: I also find it telling that the specialties breakdown only distinguishes "continental" philosophy in terms of 19th and 20th century work in the field, etc., while "analytic" philosophy is broken down extensively into a wide range of subfields. Why can't we give a category to hermeneutics? Phenomenology? Deconstruction? Critical theory? Race theory? 

Edited March 3, 2014 by dgswaim

[Monadology]

I think it's more than a little insulting when he makes claims to the effect that people doing work on Derrida, Badiou (apparently), Bataille, etc., should be relegated to literature departments. He often then goes further to insult the work being done by people in literature departments.

 

Yes, Leiter's own remarks about many continental philosophers and those who work on them are often insulting and unprofessional (dismissing huge swaths of SPEP as "hacks and poseurs" for instance). Perhaps that's reason to scrutinize extra carefully how the PGR represents continental philosophy.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Monadology

[objectivityofcontradiction]

FWIW, Leiter's rankings were helpful in my concocting a list of programs to apply to. But I have always considered it just a reference, and never the be-all-end-all of graduate program rankings. I am, however, interested primarily in German Idealism and 19th and 20th century German philosophy in general, and so I fall into the category of working in a 'continental' area that the rankings treat kindly. Maybe it goes without saying then, but I do think the rankings (for the most part) showcase the best places to pursue studies in this area in the English speaking world. As far as the argument that states that the likes of Derrida, Badiou, etc. should be relegated to cultural studies or literary theory departments, I don't think that is fair. Then again, I have had people tell me that working on 'philosophy' in such a department can actually be nice and, more importantly, may open up further avenues of employment when your studies are complete. 

 

I met Leiter at a conference last year. He comes off as a bit self-important but so do most in this field. I didn't think he was all that bad of a dude. He answered plenty of my questions regarding where I should look to apply to study area X, etc. 

[dgswaim]

Yes, Leiter's own remarks about many continental philosophers and those who work on them are often insulting and unprofessional (dismissing huge swaths of SPEP as "hacks and poseurs" for instance). Perhaps that's reason to scrutinize extra carefully how the PGR represents continental philosophy.

"SPEP is philosophy's MLA." Seriously? I don't understand why he can't just be content to say that he's unsympathetic to the work done by SPEP types, and leave it at that. 

[Cottagecheeseman]

Honestly some of these comments make me like the guy even more, if only because they are flippin hilarious.

[Monadology]

Honestly some of these comments make me like the guy even more, if only because they are flippin hilarious.

 

EDIT: Actually, I don't even know what "these comments" are supposed to be. The ones in this thread? The ones Leiter has made on his blog and on other blogs? Why are the comments in this thread or the ones Leiter has made "flippin hilarious"?

Edited March 3, 2014 by Monadology

[Cottagecheeseman]

EDIT: Actually, I don't even know what "these comments" are supposed to be. The ones in this thread? The ones Leiter has made on his blog and on other blogs? Why are the comments in this thread or the ones Leiter has made "flippin hilarious"?

Comments by Leiter in various places. He's just shitting on continental philosophy, and I find the way he does it funny. People have told me I have a weird sense of humour though.

[PerpetualApplicant No More]

A few thoughts

 

1) Re analytic/continental. I think the salient divide is not analytic vs continental, but something more like what Monadology said, analytic and one sort of continental versus another sort of continental (I'll call that the SPEP school). So I think the PGR generally should come with disjunctive advice: if you are analytic, or the "right" sort of continental, the PGR is ok for you, and can be used as a tool, viz a rough arbiter for your job prospects. If not, then you should determine what your job prospects would be in other ways. It also might be worthwhile, if you feel comfortable doing so, to think about whether you prefer the PGR-blessed version of continental or the SPEP verison (since there are such strong opinions about one or the other that will influence your professional circles).

 

2) I think looking at overall %tage of TT placement misses the point of what the PGR is about. The correlation between overall TT placement and ranking is negligible; what it does is get you jobs at *putatively* better schools. While it's also true that better is quite subjective, I think there is a fairly decent statistical barometer of what sorts of TT jobs are preferable to others, specifically, teaching load, i.e. a 2/1 or 2/2 job over a 4/4 job. I take lower teaching load to be a positive independent of whether one loves teaching (for instance, my undergrad SLAC had a 2/2 load, but the faculty's out-of-class duties were supposed to be more evenly split between publishing and spending time with students individually/supervising independent work than would be the case at a research university; I take something like that to be a preferable job for one who loves teaching versus a 4/4 load).

 

And the thing is, although I don't know of any data, my impression is that PGR rankings do correlate fairly well with lower teaching load TT jobs (from looking at the job placements of various schools; also leiter at some point did a survey of what schools place in top 20 departments, which is related).

 

3) I think this discussion is, in a sense, asking the wrong question. Even only among those who are interested in analytic/Leiter-approved contintental, instead of asking "is the PGR worthwhile" the question we should be asking is "how can the PGR be worthwhile?" The answer is, IMO, to use data different from the rankings.

 

First of all, as Johannes14 mentioned in the first post of the thread, we hear things thrown around like "you need to be at a top 10 department to do x" or "at a ranked department to do y." I think the PGR offers a plausible, though often overlooked way of 'tiering' the ranked schools: the median scores. Median of 4.5 is top 5, 4 is top 15, 3.5 is top 20, 3.0 is top 35, 2.5 is ~ top 50.

 

These tiers seem to make a difference in how easy it is to get a low teaching load job. For instance, when someone notes that you can get a job from department X without being published, I understand them to mean a median 4.0 or 4.5 department. People do get top jobs from lower ranked schools (those with median 3.0) but they seem to have certain things in common: in addition to stellar work, they all seem to work with the most famous people at that school, and (not unrelatedly) in sub-fields where the school is ranked. For example, Maryland placed two 2009 grads at Pitt and WashU, they did philosophy of physics with Jeff Bub and philosophy of mind/psych with Peter Carruthers, respectively--two of Maryland's top areas and faculty.

 

So the PGR is helpful in that you can see what your chances are for a low teaching load job by 1) seeing what 'tier' the school is in, and 2) seeing if the sub-fields/famous faculty match your interests. Of course an additional danger of trying to get a top job from a lower school is that the faculty--or your interests--might change. I had a prof who went to study at Harvard with Quine, but ended up going over from behaviorism to functionalism, so he started arguing with Quiine. He just went down the hall and did his dissertation with Putnam. You can do things like that at places like Harvard, but not lower-ranked schools.

Edited March 3, 2014 by perpetualapplicant

[dgswaim]

A few thoughts

 

1) Re analytic/continental. I think the salient divide is not analytic vs continental, but something more like what Monadology said, analytic and one sort of continental versus another sort of continental (I'll call that the SPEP school). So I think the PGR generally should come with disjunctive advice: if you are analytic, or the "right" sort of continental, the PGR is ok for you, and can be used as a tool, viz a rough arbiter for your job prospects. If not, then you should determine what your job prospects would be in other ways. It also might be worthwhile, if you feel comfortable doing so, to think about whether you prefer the PGR-blessed version of continental or the SPEP verison (since there are such strong opinions about one or the other that will influence your professional circles).

 

2) I think looking at overall %tage of TT placement misses the point of what the PGR is about. The correlation between overall TT placement and ranking is negligible; what it does is get you jobs at *putatively* better schools. While it's also true that better is quite subjective, I think there is a fairly decent statistical barometer of what sorts of TT jobs are preferable to others, specifically, teaching load, i.e. a 2/1 or 2/2 job over a 4/4 job. I take lower teaching load to be a positive independent of whether one loves teaching (for instance, my undergrad SLAC had a 2/2 load, but the faculty's out-of-class duties were supposed to be more evenly split between publishing and spending time with students individually/supervising independent work than would be the case at a research university; I take something like that to be a preferable job for one who loves teaching versus a 4/4 load).

 

And the thing is, although I don't know of any data, my impression is that PGR rankings do correlate fairly well with lower teaching load TT jobs (from looking at the job placements of various schools; also leiter at some point did a survey of what schools place in top 20 departments, which is related).

 

3) I think this discussion is, in a sense, asking the wrong question. Even only among those who are interested in analytic/Leiter-approved contintental, instead of asking "is the PGR worthwhile" the question we should be asking is "how can the PGR be worthwhile?" The answer is, IMO, to use data different from the rankings.

 

First of all, as Johannes14 mentioned in the first post of the thread, we hear things thrown around like "you need to be at a top 10 department to do x" or "at a ranked department to do y." I think the PGR offers a plausible, though often overlooked way of 'tiering' the ranked schools: the median scores. Median of 4.5 is top 5, 4 is top 15, 3.5 is top 20, 3.0 is top 35, 2.5 is ~ top 50.

 

These tiers seem to make a difference in how easy it is to get a low teaching load job. For instance, when someone notes that you can get a job from department X without being published, I understand them to mean a median 4.0 or 4.5 department. People do get top jobs from lower ranked schools (those with median 3.0) but they seem to have certain things in common: in addition to stellar work, they all seem to work with the most famous people at that school, and (not unrelatedly) in sub-fields where the school is ranked. For example, Maryland placed two 2009 grads at Pitt and WashU, they did philosophy of physics with Jeff Bub and philosophy of mind/psych with Peter Carruthers, respectively--two of Maryland's top areas and faculty.

 

So the PGR is helpful in that you can see what your chances are for a low teaching load job by 1) seeing what 'tier' the school is in, and 2) seeing if the sub-fields/famous faculty match your interests. Of course an additional danger of trying to get a top job from a lower school is that the faculty--or your interests--might change. I had a prof who went to study at Harvard with Quine, but ended up going over from behaviorism to functionalism, so he started arguing with Quiine. He just went down the hall and did his dissertation with Putnam. You can do things like that at places like Harvard, but not lower-ranked schools.

I'm surprised that it should be necessary to change one's dissertation director as a result of differing opinions.

[dgswaim]

It's funny... I logged onto facebook to find all of my friends and family members commenting on the finer points of red carpet fashion, Jennifer Lawrence's clumsiness, and the awesome star-studded selfie that Ellen just took. I'm over here on TGC debating the various attitudes scholars in academic philosophy take toward rankings and SPEP, etc. Jesus I'm a nerd.

[PerpetualApplicant No More]

A further thought:

 

I said in my previous post that the relevant distinction for understanding the PGR in respect to continental philosophy was not analytic/continental but rather analytic and "PGR-blessed" continental versus "SPEP" continental. I think that's about right, with two important clarifications.

 

Such a distinction explains 1) why the PGR subfield rankings favor some schools that do continental over others and also 2) why some schools with solid reputations and placement drop off of the rankings entirely.

 

But, first, this distinction doesn't address whether PGR-blessed continental schools are themselves at a disadvantage compared to schools that completely eschew the continental tradition in the overall PGR rankings. That is, it is unclear whether Columbia, Chicago, Georgetown, etc. are hindered in the overall rankings by dedicating even some of their resources to people working in the continental tradition at all. Whether their overall rankings are affected in this way seems to be based on the entirety of survey-takers, not just those rating departments in continental specialties.

 

Second, if it ends up being the case that continental generally is looked down upon in the overall rankings, I do wonder if we are overlooking a different (though not mutually exclusive) potential explanation as to the difference between what I've been calling the "PGR-blessed" continental schools and the "SPEP schools." Specifically, it seems to me (though I'd like to look into this more) that the former, but not the latter also have strong analytic scholars working there. For instance, I applied to UCR even though I don't do continental (full disclosure: I share Leiter's biases, but I'm willing to admit they are my biases and leave it at that) because of several strong analytic scholars in my fields. I'm not sure how much it will matter to my experience that the continental people at this school are of the "PGR-blessed" and not the SPEP sort. The reason I didn't apply anywhere like Emory is not because I have a preference for one sort of continental philosophy over another, but because they don't have anyone there who matches my interests, let alone someone who does and whose students get decent jobs (which is again not to say anything about the *overall* placement of the department).

[alethicethic]

I caution against using the PGR as a heuristic for job placement. Some people are crunching the numbers, but I've not seen anything solid yet. PGR is one thing: a survey of the opinions of selected groups of academic philosophers regarding the research of various sets of faculty. It's useful, but limited. Take it, and leave it, at that.

[Ryura]

A further thought:

 

I said in my previous post that the relevant distinction for understanding the PGR in respect to continental philosophy was not analytic/continental but rather analytic and "PGR-blessed" continental versus "SPEP" continental. I think that's about right, with two important clarifications.

 

Such a distinction explains 1) why the PGR subfield rankings favor some schools that do continental over others and also 2) why some schools with solid reputations and placement drop off of the rankings entirely.

 

But, first, this distinction doesn't address whether PGR-blessed continental schools are themselves at a disadvantage compared to schools that completely eschew the continental tradition in the overall PGR rankings. That is, it is unclear whether Columbia, Chicago, Georgetown, etc. are hindered in the overall rankings by dedicating even some of their resources to people working in the continental tradition at all. Whether their overall rankings are affected in this way seems to be based on the entirety of survey-takers, not just those rating departments in continental specialties.

 

Second, if it ends up being the case that continental generally is looked down upon in the overall rankings, I do wonder if we are overlooking a different (though not mutually exclusive) potential explanation as to the difference between what I've been calling the "PGR-blessed" continental schools and the "SPEP schools." Specifically, it seems to me (though I'd like to look into this more) that the former, but not the latter also have strong analytic scholars working there. For instance, I applied to UCR even though I don't do continental (full disclosure: I share Leiter's biases, but I'm willing to admit they are my biases and leave it at that) because of several strong analytic scholars in my fields. I'm not sure how much it will matter to my experience that the continental people at this school are of the "PGR-blessed" and not the SPEP sort. The reason I didn't apply anywhere like Emory is not because I have a preference for one sort of continental philosophy over another, but because they don't have anyone there who matches my interests, let alone someone who does and whose students get decent jobs (which is again not to say anything about the *overall* placement of the department).

As far as your second point, it's probably not true that SPEP schools don't have good analytic scholars. Fordham and Loyola are both ranked in the PGR for epistemology; Fordham for philosophy of religion; Oregon and Loyola for applied ethics; and so on. Actually, over half of Fordham's hires since 2000 have been analytic according to http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2013/11/29/Graduate-School-Placements-in-Philosophy-Continental-Programs-Job-Type-Placements.aspx but I doubt there's any question as to Fordham's status as SPEP. (Yes, I am biased and trying to defend Fordham).

[PerpetualApplicant No More]

As far as your second point, it's probably not true that SPEP schools don't have good analytic scholars. Fordham and Loyola are both ranked in the PGR for epistemology; Fordham for philosophy of religion; Oregon and Loyola for applied ethics; and so on. Actually, over half of Fordham's hires since 2000 have been analytic according to http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2013/11/29/Graduate-School-Placements-in-Philosophy-Continental-Programs-Job-Type-Placements.aspx but I doubt there's any question as to Fordham's status as SPEP. (Yes, I am biased and trying to defend Fordham).

Fair enough--I should also add that I was specifically looking for really empirically oriented people in phil mind/moral psych and didn't find any, but I shouldn't extrapolate about those departments' having or not having analytic philosophers per se from that (in full disclosure: I'm as uninterested in large swaths of putatively analytic philosophy as I am in the SPEP school, so it might be that I avoided trying to study with precisely .those analytic philosophers who get along with SPEP stuff. For instance, I only applied to work with people who look at phil mind in an empirical, rather than normative, way).

[Cottagecheeseman]

As far as your second point, it's probably not true that SPEP schools don't have good analytic scholars. Fordham and Loyola are both ranked in the PGR for epistemology; Fordham for philosophy of religion; Oregon and Loyola for applied ethics; and so on. Actually, over half of Fordham's hires since 2000 have been analytic according to http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2013/11/29/Graduate-School-Placements-in-Philosophy-Continental-Programs-Job-Type-Placements.aspx but I doubt there's any question as to Fordham's status as SPEP. (Yes, I am biased and trying to defend Fordham).

 

I think what's interesting is that Fordham, Loyola, and lets add St. Louis (because they are mentioned under epistemology in the PGR as well) is that they are catholic schools, and this puts them in a distinct category. First, then tend to place well into other catholic schools. Second, they tend to have a wide range of different traditions moving towards a single goal. I think they are unique in that sense, and so are kinda in a class of their own.