New Gourmet Report Published!

[ianfaircloud]

http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/overall.asp

 

Do the poll.  Then read on...

 

Some big changes:

• University of Chicago falls out of the T20. 
• UCLA and Berkeley are now top-ten. 
• MIT and UNC are out of the top ten. MIT, of course, lost Rae Langton and Richard Holton.
• Saint Louis University joins the top-fifty for the first time.
• University of Pennsylvania's department becomes the only Ivy League department with a graduate program in philosophy that is not in the top-thirty (at #31).  This isn't surprising, because the department hasn't added enough strong people, and because it lost Paul Guyer to Brown.
• University of Connecticut moves from 50 to 37!
• Colorado Boulder moves from 24 to 31. This, too, isn't surprising, given recent events.
• Washington Seattle and Boston University dropped out of the T50. (edited)

Regarding SLU, this is a long-overdue promotion.  SLU has a very strong cohort of medievalists and philosophers of religion, in my view, and it really fills a gap in the philosophical community.

 

Thoughts?  What's the most surprising change in the PGR?  Was this worth the editors' time?  What's the most exciting change?

 

I couldn't figure out how to allow a poll with open questions, so if you answer "other", please feel free to offer your response below.

Edited February 9, 2015 by ianfaircloud

[The Pedanticist]

Who did SLU replace?  

[ianfaircloud]

By the way, I guess Brian Leiter published this a month or so ago (I may be wrong about that) and didn't update the main website until very recently (or else I simply didn't see it until now, in which case this whole thread is quite embarrassing). But considering how little I've heard about it, maybe it will actually come as news to some people on here.

 

Edit: Leiter published some of this on the blog, but this is the first full publication of the results. On Jan. 29, Leiter noted on his blog that it was not quite finished.

Edited February 9, 2015 by ianfaircloud

[roast beef]

Who did SLU replace?  

 

I think BU was in the mid-40s in the previous version.

[ianfaircloud]

Who did SLU replace?  

 

SLU tied for 47th with three other programs. I'm having trouble remembering exactly who was in the T50, but I thought Boston University was in the T50.  It's not now.  But I thought it was.  Maybe someone can shed light on this.

[Establishment]

On 2/8/2015 at 11:11 PM, The Pedanticist said:

Who did SLU replace?  

 

It looks like U Washington -- Seattle dropped from 43 to out of the top-50's, as well as Boston U which was 44 before, and now also out of the top-50's.

[Establishment]

For those wondering how that math is suppose to work out, apparently Leiter was sneaky last time and had 51 schools in the top-50. So, both UW and BU fell out for SLU.

[isostheneia]

I'm surprised that only after 6 votes, there's already some consensus, given the amount of options! 3 votes for UChicago being most under-ranked, and 3 votes for USC being most over-ranked (another 2 for Berkeley as well).

 

Regarding UChicago's fall out of the top 20, it's perhaps not too surprising given the faculty they've lost. The most impactful one, I would think, is Michael Forster's move to Bonn. They also lost Anat Schechtman to Wisconsin, Christopher Frey to South Carolina, and Ted Cohen died last year. They are, however, doing three job searches this year - early modern, philosophy of science, and German idealism. I've heard that they're considering making offers to Clinton Tolley (UCSD) and Matt Boyle (Harvard) for the German idealism job. Which could be pretty impactful for those of us applying to all three places for German idealism. Hopefully we know where people will be once decisions have to be made!

[Appppplication]

UGG. That guy should step down from the rankings. The Gourmet Report should be banned and reconstructed under a new name with new methodologies. 

 

Please take these rankings with a grain of salt people. 

[philstudent1991]

UGG. That guy should step down from the rankings. The Gourmet Report should be banned and reconstructed under a new name with new methodologies. 

 

Please take these rankings with a grain of salt people. 

Well he is haha. His bud is taking over for the next time around. And while of course the rankings shouldn't be taken as divine, I think they are worth something, and the methodology is reasonable. 

[ianfaircloud]

UGG. That guy should step down from the rankings. The Gourmet Report should be banned and reconstructed under a new name with new methodologies. 

 

Please take these rankings with a grain of salt people. 

 

Yes, the PGR is controversial. But it's very influential, and I think most people respect the results as a rough indicator of faculty quality. More importantly, for the purposes of this post, I think we're wanting to know what the effect of the PGR will be.

 

Oh, and I'll mention again: Prof. Leiter brought on someone who many of us trust and respect, Prof. Berit Brogaard. Since she's co-editor, I assume she contributed in a big way and probably offered some oversight. Prof. Brogaard was an excellent custodian of the graduate program at UMSL before she left for University of Miami. From my own communication with her, I can say only good things.

 

Regarding Prof. Leiter, I have to say that I've had only good experiences of him. I know people like to complain about him, and maybe you have good reasons to complain. I don't want to question you or your conclusion. I just want to say that I have had some very nice communication with him over the last several years. He has offered me free advice and valuable encouragement, and I wish that others could experience that side of him.

[jailbreak]

Yes, the PGR is controversial. But it's very influential, and I think most people respect the results as a rough indicator of faculty quality. More importantly, for the purposes of this post, I think we're wanting to know what the effect of the PGR will be.

 

Oh, and I'll mention again: Prof. Leiter brought on someone who many of us trust and respect, Prof. Berit Brogaard. Since she's co-editor, I assume she contributed in a big way and probably offered some oversight. Prof. Brogaard was an excellent custodian of the graduate program at UMSL before she left for University of Miami. From my own communication with her, I can say only good things.

 

Regarding Prof. Leiter, I have to say that I've had only good experiences of him. I know people like to complain about him, and maybe you have good reasons to complain. I don't want to question you or your conclusion. I just want to say that I have had some very nice communication with him over the last several years. He has offered me free advice and valuable encouragement, and I wish that others could experience that side of him.

 

He has a history of harassing and intimidating members of the philosophical community, particularly those in a more vulnerable position than him (because they're students, or because they're female professors or adjuncts making potentially unpopular but necessary comments on climate issues in philosophy): https://files.nyu.edu/dv26/public/Statement_of_Concern.htmlThe fact that you've had a few nice exchanges with him doesn't compensate for that.

[Establishment]

He has a history of harassing and intimidating members of the philosophical community, particularly those in a more vulnerable position than him (because they're students, or because they're female professors or adjuncts making potentially unpopular but necessary comments on climate issues in philosophy): https://files.nyu.edu/dv26/public/Statement_of_Concern.htmlThe fact that you've had a few nice exchanges with him doesn't compensate for that.

 

He also has a history of reporting on how sexist gender biases affect student evaluations of professors (a second time), advertising a discussion space for people to discuss discrimination and disadvantages in the philosophical community (advertising a blog on what it's like to be a person of color in philosophy) (advertising a blog for female job seekers in philosophy) (advertising a chicago-area women in philosophy workshop) (advertising a post on Feminist Philosophers on legal advice for victims of sexual harassment and assault) (advertising a study regarding the imbalance of men in philosophy compared to other fields), mocking college provosts who think that sexual harassment is not a problem at their own universities, wishing that the Eastern APA would discontinue its practice of job interviews which additionally burden job candidates, deciding to join in the boycott against Illinois over its treatment of Salaita, raising a discussion on how best to retain undergraduate women in philosophy, a post on what sexual harassment can do to a victim, that students from MA programs are producing better writing samples is to the credit of MA programs, encouraging women to stay in philosophy, a networking and mentoring workshop for graduate student women in philosophy, summer program for undergraduate women philosophers, and another, seeking advice for a young, junior faculty member trying to get tenure

 

Okay, I'm going to have to stop here. I've only been able to go as far as back as... Dec. 2013... and he's been tagging posts with "Issues in the Profession" since 2007. So I'm still missing a lot.

 

I'm not unequivocally defending Leiter's views and actions. But let's try to keep a level head about who he is as a whole.

 

EDIT: Perhaps more precisely put, I'm very skeptical of the claim (both empirically, and causally) that Leiter specifically targets persons in vulnerable or disadvantaged positions.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Establishment

[Griswald]

Does anyone know if Stalnaker was on the faculty list for MIT? I know he's retiring very soon, and if he wasn't on the list, that would be a noteworthy fact.

EDIT: just checked and Stalnaker was included as part-time faculty with a note about his upcoming phased retirement.

Edited February 9, 2015 by aduh

[reixis]

About MIT, I think they will likely make a senior appointment soon. As Leiter himself reported a few months ago, Karen Bennett (Cornell) turned down an offer from them.

 

Also, Cornell lost both Ted Sider and Jill North (which, I think, there wasn't enough time to include in the 2014 PGR).

 

I personally used the PGR as a first-guide tool, but haven't really relied on it to decide where to apply. As an international student applying from a non-English speaking country, I must say that the PGR was of a great help to help me familiarize with the admissions process in the US. It takes some time until you realize its limitations, but it still does a good job informing those who don't have any personal guidance to go through the process. 

[overoverover]

SLU tied for 47th with three other programs. I'm having trouble remembering exactly who was in the T50, but I thought Boston University was in the T50. It's not now. But I thought it was. Maybe someone can shed light on this.

BU was in the mid 40s. We lost a lot of faculty recently, though are hiring currently.

[jailbreak]

He also has a history of reporting on how sexist gender biases affect student evaluations of professors (a second time), advertising a discussion space for people to discuss discrimination and disadvantages in the philosophical community (advertising a blog on what it's like to be a person of color in philosophy) (advertising a blog for female job seekers in philosophy) (advertising a chicago-area women in philosophy workshop) (advertising a post on Feminist Philosophers on legal advice for victims of sexual harassment and assault) (advertising a study regarding the imbalance of men in philosophy compared to other fields), mocking college provosts who think that sexual harassment is not a problem at their own universities, wishing that the Eastern APA would discontinue its practice of job interviews which additionally burden job candidates, deciding to join in the boycott against Illinois over its treatment of Salaita, raising a discussion on how best to retain undergraduate women in philosophy, a post on what sexual harassment can do to a victim, that students from MA programs are producing better writing samples is to the credit of MA programs, encouraging women to stay in philosophy, a networking and mentoring workshop for graduate student women in philosophy, summer program for undergraduate women philosophers, and another, seeking advice for a young, junior faculty member trying to get tenure

 

Okay, I'm going to have to stop here. I've only been able to go as far as back as... Dec. 2013... and he's been tagging posts with "Issues in the Profession" since 2007. So I'm still missing a lot.

 

I'm not unequivocally defending Leiter's views and actions. But let's try to keep a level head about who he is as a whole.

 

EDIT: Perhaps more precisely put, I'm very skeptical of the claim (both empirically, and causally) that Leiter specifically targets persons in vulnerable or disadvantaged positions.

 

Part of the purpose of his blog is to provide updates on events and programs within the philosophical community. Given recent events, obviously some of those events and programs will regard climate issues, bias, and discrimination -- sharing them is just an extension of his blog's overall function, and means little about who he is as a person. Additionally, I'm not claiming that Leiter "specifically targets" persons in vulnerable positions -- this isn't a question of intent. It's just that the individuals most likely to see and speak out about disparities in philosophy *are*, in fact, in disadvantaged positions -- historically, it's been harder for POC or women to advance through the academic ranks in philosophy. On top of this, even those with a feminist outlook or even, in fact, women or minorities are susceptible to implicit bias, which makes everyone more likely to react more negatively to, e.g., an opinion voiced by a woman or person of color -- caring about gender issues (though I'm not sure Leiter does care that much) and reinforcing bias and discrimination are not mutually exclusive. Finally, Leiter may not feel as many qualms about harassing individuals who he does not see as his colleagues, given that his blog and the PGR would have little meaning or value without broad support from well-respected philosophers. If you can find evidence that Leiter targets just as many of his well-established white male colleagues with legal threats and attacks to their personal emails, then by all means, please share.

 

As a female applicant, I feel that Leiter has done a lot in the past year or more to make the philosophical community a hostile one. I'm not interested in continuing this tiresome debate further, given that I've unfortunately had to engage in it many times already. If you think those posts are good enough to make up for his history of lashing out at members of the philosophical community, that's your prerogative, but I firmly disagree.

[Infinite Zest]

Maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't PGR updated a few weeks ago?

[ianfaircloud]

Maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't PGR updated a few weeks ago?

 

The whole PGR was just rolled out, though Leiter has revealed pieces of it over the course of the last month. But no, PGR was not updated until very recently. As of Jan 29, it was not updated. I checked last night and noticed that it was up. Leiter planned to release it earlier, but I take it that it took more time than anticipated.

[ianfaircloud]

Part of the purpose of his blog is to provide updates on events and programs within the philosophical community. Given recent events, obviously some of those events and programs will regard climate issues, bias, and discrimination -- sharing them is just an extension of his blog's overall function, and means little about who he is as a person. Additionally, I'm not claiming that Leiter "specifically targets" persons in vulnerable positions -- this isn't a question of intent. It's just that the individuals most likely to see and speak out about disparities in philosophy *are*, in fact, in disadvantaged positions -- historically, it's been harder for POC or women to advance through the academic ranks in philosophy. On top of this, even those with a feminist outlook or even, in fact, women or minorities are susceptible to implicit bias, which makes everyone more likely to react more negatively to, e.g., an opinion voiced by a woman or person of color -- caring about gender issues (though I'm not sure Leiter does care that much) and reinforcing bias and discrimination are not mutually exclusive. Finally, Leiter may not feel as many qualms about harassing individuals who he does not see as his colleagues, given that his blog and the PGR would have little meaning or value without broad support from well-respected philosophers. If you can find evidence that Leiter targets just as many of his well-established white male colleagues with legal threats and attacks to their personal emails, then by all means, please share.

 

As a female applicant, I feel that Leiter has done a lot in the past year or more to make the philosophical community a hostile one. I'm not interested in continuing this tiresome debate further, given that I've unfortunately had to engage in it many times already. If you think those posts are good enough to make up for his history of lashing out at members of the philosophical community, that's your prerogative, but I firmly disagree.

 

Jailbreak and others: If it's not too inconvenient, are you OK taking the Prof. Leiter discussion to a new topic? I ask only because (just from experience on this forum) a topic can be sort-of taken on one course, a heated debate, and I've found that these debates tend to shut down the original topic. I don't own the topic or this forum, but I did start it, and I hoped that the focus could be on the stuff I mentioned in the post. The post is really about the effect of PGR (not so much Prof. Leiter) on admissions and perhaps even the merits of PGR itself. It's not about personalities (or at least I hoped it would not be). I recall above, Jailbreak, that you mentioned that the methods of the survey are questionable. That seems like a good thing for this topic. I mean no disrespect to anyone, but just from experience I think this argument over Prof. Leiter will become the focus of this topic. Maybe I speak for no one but myself, but I didn't want that to be the focus. Again, I don't own the topic or the forum. I replied to your original post, Jailbreak, only because when I see someone's character questioned on the forum, and that person has been very nice to me, I try to offer another view. (Of course, as I said above, my own encounters do not call into question your personal experiences of him. Maybe you have personally interacted with him and seen a different side. I'm not questioning that.) Perhaps my reply only encouraged a tangent that I didn't want to encourage. Anyway, with all sincerity and respect, I wonder if we are OK taking the Prof. Leiter character discussion to a new thread.

[perpetuavix]

It's interesting, because last year, it seemed like there was more debate about the quality and usefulness of the PGR. This year, it seems like it's a fairly accepted standard. I personally don't think the PGR is methodologically sound, generally, but I think this year's PGR is especially suspect. After the September statement (which jailbreak linked to), the PGR saw some substantial drops in participation. In some specialty categories, the numbers of evaluators decreased by 30-50%, with even fewer women than normal. The feminist philosophy rankings had so few evaluators this year that the results from 2011 and 2014 were combined in order to generate that specialty ranking. Mitchell Aboulsfia has detailed the drop in evaluators: http://upnight.com/category/philosophical-gourmet-report/(I find some of his other posts a little.... hyperbolic, but the numbers are easily verifiable). The sampling method is called "snowballing sampling"; when I described the method of the PGR to my social scientists partner and asked if it was snowball sampling, he started laughing. (In the PGR, Brian Leiter picks the advisory Board and the advisory Board pick the evaluators. In a true snowball sample, there would be more rounds of recruiting to ensure a larger sample size and attempt to eliminate bias). Also, schools with high percentages of tenured female faculty are generally ranked lower: http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/doctoral_2004.html. There are many possible explanations for this; I think some of these departments ask to not be included in the PGR. But, implicit bias also might have something to do with it. Reading the methodology page of the PGR is well worthwhile. I think the specialty rankings have some value, since they are the opinions of the people with knowledge about the subfield, but the overall rankings are dubious (to me). Evalutors can't evaluate their current school or where they got a PhD, but otherwise, they can evaluate every other department. They look at a faculty list and give a number between 0 and 5 to convey faculty quality. There aren't guidelines about how they should do this. Perhaps you think that 'reputation' can be captured by this method, but I really doubt it. 

There is a lot of discussion on blogs (that aren't LR) about the value of rankings in general. It seems that the philosophical community (that frequent blogs that aren't LR) is divided about the issue. See:

http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2014/10/there-are-good-rankings-and-bad-rankings.html

http://dailynous.com/2014/10/08/broader-effects-of-the-pgr/

http://www.newappsblog.com/2014/09/the-pgr-board-letter-and-a-different-perspective.html

http://www.newappsblog.com/2014/10/a-rankings-vacuum-is-unsustainable-in-the-internet-era.html#more

http://proteviblog.typepad.com/protevi/2014/10/the-october-statement-no-rankings-not-now-not-ever.html

If you're interested in a timeline of the events that lead to (?) Leiter stepping down from PGR: http://www.readmorewritemorethinkmorebemore.com/2014/09/archive-of-meltdown.html

 

The rankings, whether they are good, bad, methodologically sound, whatever, definitely have an effect on the discipline. It is used as a rough proxy for quality. It probably affects job placement. The world might've been worse without it. But, it has some issues, and I think people can make better decisions if they are aware of those issues. 

[ianfaircloud]

It's interesting, because last year, it seemed like there was more debate about the quality and usefulness of the PGR. This year, it seems like it's a fairly accepted standard. I personally don't think the PGR is methodologically sound, generally, but I think this year's PGR is especially suspect. After the September statement (which jailbreak linked to), the PGR saw some substantial drops in participation. In some specialty categories, the numbers of evaluators decreased by 30-50%, with even fewer women than normal. The feminist philosophy rankings had so few evaluators this year that the results from 2011 and 2014 were combined in order to generate that specialty ranking. Mitchell Aboulsfia has detailed the drop in evaluators: http://upnight.com/category/philosophical-gourmet-report/(I find some of his other posts a little.... hyperbolic, but the numbers are easily verifiable). The sampling method is called "snowballing sampling"; when I described the method of the PGR to my social scientists partner and asked if it was snowball sampling, he started laughing. (In the PGR, Brian Leiter picks the advisory Board and the advisory Board pick the evaluators. In a true snowball sample, there would be more rounds of recruiting to ensure a larger sample size and attempt to eliminate bias). Also, schools with high percentages of tenured female faculty are generally ranked lower: http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/doctoral_2004.html. There are many possible explanations for this; I think some of these departments ask to not be included in the PGR. But, implicit bias also might have something to do with it. Reading the methodology page of the PGR is well worthwhile. I think the specialty rankings have some value, since they are the opinions of the people with knowledge about the subfield, but the overall rankings are dubious (to me). Evalutors can't evaluate their current school or where they got a PhD, but otherwise, they can evaluate every other department. They look at a faculty list and give a number between 0 and 5 to convey faculty quality. There aren't guidelines about how they should do this. Perhaps you think that 'reputation' can be captured by this method, but I really doubt it. 

There is a lot of discussion on blogs (that aren't LR) about the value of rankings in general. It seems that the philosophical community (that frequent blogs that aren't LR) is divided about the issue. See:

http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2014/10/there-are-good-rankings-and-bad-rankings.html

http://dailynous.com/2014/10/08/broader-effects-of-the-pgr/

http://www.newappsblog.com/2014/09/the-pgr-board-letter-and-a-different-perspective.html

http://www.newappsblog.com/2014/10/a-rankings-vacuum-is-unsustainable-in-the-internet-era.html#more

http://proteviblog.typepad.com/protevi/2014/10/the-october-statement-no-rankings-not-now-not-ever.html

If you're interested in a timeline of the events that lead to (?) Leiter stepping down from PGR: http://www.readmorewritemorethinkmorebemore.com/2014/09/archive-of-meltdown.html

 

The rankings, whether they are good, bad, methodologically sound, whatever, definitely have an effect on the discipline. It is used as a rough proxy for quality. It probably affects job placement. The world might've been worse without it. But, it has some issues, and I think people can make better decisions if they are aware of those issues. 

What a sensible post on the topic!  Despite years of education, I've never taken a course in statistics, and I haven't studied statistics informally, either.  But it would not surprise me to find out that a survey conducted by a philosopher wouldn't be exactly right. 

 

One interesting, very small problem with the PGR is that it cannot free itself from the effects of pedigree bias.  As I understand it, it asks philosophers to evaluate departments based on the list of faculty in the department.  The department's name is not listed; the idea is that the evaluator will think only about the quality of the faculty.  I admire that goal.  Now here's the "problem": A philosopher's reputation is affected, no doubt, by her department's reputation.  Philosopher X looks better when she's tenured at PGR #1.  What I'm saying is that the ranking of the department itself unavoidably affects our views of the members of faculty of that department.  (And obviously the fact that the department's name is not listed will not change the fact that everybody knows where these philosophers work.)  Now maybe the evaluators of PGR, since they're some of the best in their subfields, are immune to these effects.  That's plausible.  But then again, we've all heard about studies that prove a very powerful "pedigree bias" at work in faculty hiring.  Crucially, a pedigree bias is at work when an otherwise better-qualified applicant is selected against only because of the applicant's academic pedigree.  The pedigree bias suggests that even highly qualified evaluators may succumb to the effects of bias against people, or for people, based on institutions with which the people are, or are not, associated.  (Many of us have experienced the effects of pedigree bias in our own pursuits!)

 

Relatedly, an irony of the PGR is that it is self-fulfilling.  So department X is now #10.  Do we expect that department to be perceived as better?  Of course.  Won't this affect the ability of Department X's grads to get better jobs?  I suspect that it does.  Will not the improved placement record then give people even more reason to say that Department X has earned its #10 ranking?  The direction of cause and effect is reversed.  How we define what makes a department a good department is based in part on its ranking.

 

These issues probably can't be overcome in any survey.  So to call it a fault of PGR may not be right.  Maybe it's just a caveat to attach to any rankings like these.

[Cecinestpasunphilosophe]

The whole PGR was just rolled out, though Leiter has revealed pieces of it over the course of the last month. But no, PGR was not updated until very recently. As of Jan 29, it was not updated. I checked last night and noticed that it was up. Leiter planned to release it earlier, but I take it that it took more time than anticipated.

 

The site had been updated since mid-December (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2014/12/philosophical-gourmet-report-2014-15-now-updated.html). I'm glad you made this thread, though - I was wondering why no one was talking about it!

[maxhgns]

The philosophy of art rankings are kind of wonky again. And, to be honest, I don't see why it needs to have so few evaluators.

 

 

As far as the most underrated programs go, I honestly think that dubious distinction goes to the non-Toronto Canadian programs.

[Cecinestpasunphilosophe]

The philosophy of art rankings are kind of wonky again. And, to be honest, I don't see why it needs to have so few evaluators.

 

 

As far as the most underrated programs go, I honestly think that dubious distinction goes to the non-Toronto Canadian programs.

 

The specialty rankings really help demonstrate how much these rankings are contingent on small interdepartmental changes. For instance, if you compare the 2015 rankings for philosophy of religion (http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/breakdown/breakdown7.asp) with the 2011: 

 

Group 1 (1):  rounded mean of 5.0 (median, mode)

University of Notre Dame (5, 5)

Group 2 (2):  rounded mean of 4.5 (median, mode)

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (4, 4)

Group 3 (3-5):  rounded mean of 4.0 (median, mode)

Oxford University (4, 4.5)

Purdue University (3.75, 4.0)

#St. Louis University

Group 4 (6): rounded mean of 3.5 (median, mode)

Cornell University (3.75, 5)

Group 5 (7-16):  rounded mean of 3.0 (median, mode)

*Baylor University

*Fordham University

Georgetown University (3, 2.5)

Indiana University, Bloomington (3, 3.5)

Rutgers University, New Brunswick (3.5, 3.5)

University of Colorado, Boulder (3.25, 3.5)

*University of New England (Australia)

#University of Oklahoma, Norman

University of Virginia (3, 3)

Yale University (3, 4) 

 

---

 

You'll notice some radical changes. Perhaps most strikingly, UNC-Chapel Hill was the second highest ranked program in the world in 2011, and has completely dropped off the charts by 2015. Why? Because (as far as I can tell) Marilyn McCord and Bob Adams have moved from being faculty at UNC to being part-time professors at the new Rutgers Centre for the Philosophy of Religion. But that means that, in 2011, UNC's ranking as one of the best places in the world to study philosophy of religion was contingent on two people. Whereas places like Notre Dame, Oxford, SLU etc. have a number of faculty working int he field, large institutional support for the area of study (specific Centres for the philosophy of religion, for instance, or sponsored conferences etc.). Yet they still ranked below UNC on the force of two individuals. It's fascinating. 

I'm also surprised that Cornell and Duke weren't included in the philosophy of religion rankings - especially Cornell, as they have a number of people in the department working in the field and a major research grant from the Templeton Foundation.