|
PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
Group 1 (1) (mean of 4.5) (median, mode)
London School of Economics (4, 4)
Group 2 (2-6) (mean of 4.0) (median, mode)
Columbia University (4, 4)
Duke University (3.5, 3.5)
University of California, Irvine (4, 3 & 4 & 4.5)
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (4, 4.5)
University of Wisconsin, Madison (4, 4)
Group 3 (7-15) (mean of 3.5) (median, mode)
Cambridge University (3.5, 3.5)
Oxford University (3.5, 3.5)
Princeton University (4, 4)
Rutgers University, New Brunswick (3.75, 2 & 3.5 & 4 & 4.5)
Stanford University (4, 1.5 & 4 & 4.5)
University of Arizona (3.75, 4)
University of Pennsylvania (4, 4)
University of Washington, Seattle (3.5, 2.5 & 4)
University of Western Ontario (3.75, 4)
Group 4 (16-34) (mean of 3.0) (median, mode)
Australian National University (3.25, 0 & 3 & 3.5 & 4.5)
Carnegie-Mellon University (3, 4.5)
Cornell University (3.5, 4)
Harvard University (3.5, 3.5)
New York University (3.25, 2 & 3 & 3.5 & 4)
Ohio State University (3, 2.5 & 3.5)
University of Bristol (3.25, 0 & 3 & 3.5 &4.5)
University of British Columbia (3, 3)
University of California, Berkeley (3.5, 3.5)
University of California, San Diego (2.75, 2.5)
University of Edinburgh (3, 1.5 & 3 & 3.5)
# University of Exeter (3.5, n/a)
* University of Kentucky
University of Missouri, Columbia (3, 3)
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (2.75, 2)
University of Notre Dame (3.25, 3.5)
University of Pittsburgh (4, 4 & 5)
University of Toronto (3.25, 2 & 3 & 3.5 & 4)
University of Virginia (3.25, 3.5)
* inserted by Board
# based on 2004 results, in some cases with modest adjustments by the Advisory Board to reflect changes in staff in the interim
Evaluators: Cristina Bicchieri, John Dupre, Daniel Hausman, Alan Nelson, Alexander Rosenberg, Brian Skyrms.
Remember: evaluators were not permitted to evaluate either their own department or the department from which they received their highest degree (PhD, DPhil, sometimes the BPhil).
Editor’s note: Some philosophers of social science have raised questions about whether this pool of evaluators was fairly representative of the field. There is pertinent discussion of the issue here: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2007/01/philosophy_of_s.html
|
