|
This year's overall rankings are based on reputational surveys completed by nearly 200 philosophers throughout the English-speaking world and Continental Europe; 230 philosophers participated in either the overall or speciality rankings, often both. Evaluators included 15 Fellows of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, and nearly 10 Fellows of either the British Academy or the Royal Society of Canada, among other learned societies, as well as leading senior and junior philosophers in every area of philosophy. In the overall rankings, evaluators were asked to evaluate randomly ordered faculty lists that did not include the university's name along the following dimension:
Please give your opinion of the attractiveness of the faculty for a prospective student, taking in to account (and weighted as you deem appropriate) the quality of philosophical work and talent on the faculty, the range of areas the faculty covers, and the availability of the faculty over the next few years.
After scoring faculties, evaluators then viewed a list of their evaluations organized by score, and had an opportunity to revise their scorings.
Because evaluators do not have reliable access to information about the quality of graduate teaching and mentoring for most departments, this was not a component of the evaluation. As always, students are advised to talk to current students before enrolling at any program.
Evaluators scored departments on the following scale:
- 5 - Distinguished
- 4 - Strong
- 3 - Good
- 2 - Adequate
- 1 - Marginal
- 0 - Inadequate for a PhD program.
0.5 fractions were permitted. The rank of each department is based on the "overall" mean. In the next three columns the department's rank in the 2009, 2006, and 2004 Reports are given.
All programs in the top 50 in the U.S., the top 15 in the U.K., and the top 5 in Canada and Australasia, since based on this and past year results, we have reason to think that no program not included in the survey would have ranked ahead of these programs. Other programs evaluated this year are listed unranked afterwards; there may well have been programs not surveyed this year that would have fared as well.
Note: 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).
Ranking Of Faculties In The United States
| Rank |
School |
Mean |
Median |
Mode |
Rank in 2011 |
Rank in 2009 |
Rank in 2006 |
| 1 |
New York University |
4.8 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
| 2 |
Princeton University |
4.4 |
4.5 |
4.5 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
| |
Rutgers University, New Brunswick |
4.4 |
4.5 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
| 4 |
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor |
4.2 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
| 5 |
Yale University |
4.1 |
4.0 |
4.0 ,4.5 |
7 |
8 |
16 |
| 6 |
Harvard University |
4.0 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| |
University of Pittsburgh |
4.0 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
| 8 |
Stanford University |
3.9 |
4.0 |
3.5, 4.0 |
9 |
9 |
6 |
| |
University of Southern California |
3.9 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
11 |
17 |
16 |
| 10 |
Columbia University (incl. Barnard) |
3.8 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
11 |
13 |
9 |
| |
University of California, Berkeley |
3.8 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
14 |
9 |
12 |
| |
University of California, Los Angeles |
3.8 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
11 |
9 |
7 |
| 13 |
Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
3.7 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
| |
University of Arizona |
3.7 |
3.5 |
4.0 |
14 |
13 |
13 |
| |
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill |
3.7 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
9 |
9 |
10 |
| 16 |
City University of New York Graduate Center |
3.6 |
3.5 |
4.0 |
14 |
15 |
23 |
| 17 |
Cornell University |
3.5 |
3.5 |
4.0 |
14 |
17 |
16 |
| |
University of Notre Dame |
3.5 |
3.5 |
4.0 |
18 |
15 |
13 |
| |
University of Texas, Austin |
3.5 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
20 |
20 |
13 |
| 20 |
Brown University |
3.4 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
19 |
17 |
16 |
| 21 |
University of Chicago |
3.3 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
20 |
21 |
20 |
| |
University of Wisconsin, Madison |
3.3 |
3.5 |
3.0 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
| 23 |
University of California, San Diego |
3.2 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
22 |
21 |
20 |
| 24 |
Duke University |
3.0 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
24 |
26 |
27 |
| |
Indiana University, Bloomington |
3.0 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
24 |
23 |
27 |
| |
University of California, Irvine |
3.0 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
29 |
23 |
20 |
| |
Washington University, St. Louis |
3.0 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
31 |
30 |
39 |
| 28 |
Ohio State University |
2.9 |
3.0 |
2.5 |
24 |
26 |
26 |
| |
University of California, Riverside |
2.9 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
31 |
30 |
31 |
| |
University of Massachusetts, Amherst |
2.9 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
24 |
26 |
24 |
| 31 |
Northwestern University |
2.8 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
31 |
41 |
53 |
| |
University of Colorado, Boulder |
2.8 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
24 |
26 |
26 |
| |
University of Maryland, College Park |
2.8 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
31 |
30 |
27 |
| |
University of Miami |
2.8 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
31 |
34 |
32 |
| |
University of Pennsylvania |
2.8 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
29 |
30 |
27 |
| |
University of Virginia |
2.8 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
37 |
36 |
39 |
| 37 |
Georgetown University |
2.7 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
36 |
36 |
39 |
| |
Syracuse University |
2.7 |
2.5 |
3.0 |
37 |
34 |
32 |
| |
University of Connecticut, Storrs |
2.7 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
50 |
43 |
48 |
| 40 |
Carnegie-Mellon University |
2.6 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
40 |
36 |
39 |
| |
Johns Hopkins University |
2.6 |
2.5 |
3.0 |
37 |
43 |
35 |
| 42 |
University of California, Davis |
2.4 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
44 |
36 |
35 |
| |
University of California, Santa Barbara |
2.4 |
2.5 |
2.0 |
40 |
41 |
39 |
| |
University of Illinois, Chicago |
2.4 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
40 |
36 |
35 |
| 45 | Florida State University |
2.3 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
44 |
43 |
44 |
| | University of Rochester |
2.3 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
44 |
48 |
44 |
| 47 | Rice University |
2.2 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
44 |
48 |
50 |
| | Saint Louis University |
2.2 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
n/a |
54 |
not in top 50 |
| | University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul |
2.2 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
44 |
47 |
44 |
| | University of Missouri, Columbia |
2.2 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
50 |
48 |
53 |
| |
Other schools evaluated in 2014 (not ranked, since there may have been schools not evaluated that might have performed comparably) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Boston University |
2.1 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
|
|
|
| | Texas A&M University |
2.1 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
|
|
|
| | University of Utah |
2.1 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
|
|
|
| | Arizona State University |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
|
|
|
| | Purdue University |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
|
|
|
| | University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign |
1.9 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
|
|
|
| | University of Washington, Seattle |
1.9 |
2.0 |
2.5 |
|
|
|
| | University of Cincinnati |
1.8 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
|
|
|
| |
Emory University |
1.4 |
1.5 |
2.0 |
|
|
|
Graphical summaries: United States
(See 'A Note on the Figures' below)
 Mean, Mode, and Median Plot
 Histogram of Votes
 Kernel Density Plot
Ranking Of Faculties In The United Kingdom
Graphical summaries: United Kingdom
(See 'A Note on the Figures' below)
 Mean, Mode, and Median Plot
 Histogram of Votes
 Kernel Density Plot
Ranking Of Faculties In Canada
Graphical summaries: Canada
(See 'A Note on the Figures' below)
 Mean, Mode, and Median Plot
 Histogram of Votes
 Kernel Density Plot
Rankings Of Faculties In Australasia
Graphical summaries: Australasia
(See 'A Note on the Figures' below)
 Mean, Mode, and Median Plot
 Histogram of Votes
 Kernel Density Plot
Ranking Of Top 50 Faculties In The English-Speaking World
| Rank |
School |
Region |
Mean |
Median |
| 1 |
New York University |
USA |
4.8 |
5.0 |
| 2 |
Oxford University |
UK |
4.6 |
4.5 |
| 3 |
Princeton University |
USA |
4.4 |
4.5 |
| |
Rutgers University, New Brunswick |
USA |
4.4 |
4.5 |
| 5 |
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor |
USA |
4.2 |
4.0 |
| 6 |
Yale University |
USA |
4.1 |
4.0 |
| 7 |
Harvard University |
USA |
4.0 |
4.0 |
| |
University of Pittsburgh |
USA |
4.0 |
4.0 |
| 9 |
Stanford University |
USA |
3.9 |
4.0 |
| |
University of Southern California |
USA |
3.9 |
4.0 |
| 11 |
Columbia University (incl. Barnard) |
USA |
3.8 |
4.0 |
| |
University of California, Berkeley |
USA |
3.8 |
4.0 |
| |
University of California, Los Angeles |
USA |
3.8 |
4.0 |
| |
University of Toronto |
Canada |
3.8 |
4.0 |
| 15 |
Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
USA |
3.7 |
4.0 |
| |
University of Arizona |
USA |
3.7 |
3.5 |
| |
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill |
USA |
3.7 |
4.0 |
| 18 |
City University of New York Graduate Center |
USA |
3.6 |
3.5 |
| 19 |
Cambridge University |
UK |
3.5 |
3.5 |
| |
Cornell University |
USA |
3.5 |
3.5 |
| |
University of Notre Dame |
USA |
3.5 |
3.5 |
| |
University of Texas, Austin |
USA |
3.5 |
3.5 |
| 23 |
Brown University |
USA |
3.4 |
3.5 |
| 24 |
Australian National University |
Australasia |
3.3 |
3.5 |
| |
University of Chicago |
USA |
3.3 |
3.5 |
| |
University of Wisconsin, Madison |
USA |
3.3 |
3.5 |
| 27 |
University of California, San Diego |
USA |
3.2 |
3.0 |
| |
University of St Andrews/University of Stirling Joint Program |
UK |
3.2 |
3.0 |
| 29 |
Duke University |
USA |
3.0 |
3.0 |
| |
Indiana University, Bloomington |
USA |
3.0 |
3.0 |
| |
University of California, Irvine |
USA |
3.0 |
3.0 |
| |
University of Edinburgh |
UK |
3.0 |
3.0 |
| |
Washington University, St. Louis |
USA |
3.0 |
3.0 |
| 34 |
King’s College, London |
UK |
2.9 |
3.0 |
| |
Ohio State University |
USA |
2.9 |
3.0 |
| |
University of California, Riverside |
USA |
2.9 |
3.0 |
| |
University of Massachusetts, Amherst |
USA |
2.9 |
3.0 |
| 38 |
London School of Economics |
UK |
2.8 |
3.0 |
| |
Northwestern University |
USA |
2.8 |
3.0 |
| |
University College London |
UK |
2.8 |
3.0 |
| |
University of Colorado, Boulder |
USA |
2.8 |
3.0 |
| |
University of Maryland, College Park |
USA |
2.8 |
3.0 |
| |
University of Miami |
USA |
2.8 |
3.0 |
| |
University of Pennsylvania |
USA |
2.8 |
3.0 |
| |
University of Sydney |
Australasia |
2.8 |
3.0 |
| |
University of Virginia |
USA |
2.8 |
3.0 |
| 47 |
Georgetown University |
USA |
2.7 |
3.0 |
| |
Syracuse University |
USA |
2.7 |
2.5 |
| |
University of Birmingham |
UK |
2.7 |
3.0 |
| |
University of British Columbia |
Canada |
2.7 |
3.0 |
| |
University of Connecticut, Storrs |
USA |
2.7 |
2.5 |
| |
University of Leeds |
UK |
2.7 |
2.5 |
| |
University of Western Ontario |
Canada |
2.7 |
3.0 |
Graphical summaries: English-Speaking World
(See 'A Note on the Figures' below)
 Mean, Mode, and Median Plot
 Histogram of Votes
 Kernel Density Plot
Unranked PhD Programs outside the top ranks in the US, UK, Canada, and Australasia
There are, by almost everyone's admission, too many PhD programs, perhaps especially in the United States; students should think very carefully before enrolling in the programs that are not well-ranked overall, though some have, to be sure, particular niches of excellence, that are reflected in the specialty rankings later in this Report. For those specialty niches, programs not well-ranked overall may be a good choice. Be sure, in any event, to get a complete report on job placement from these programs before enrolling: some have better records than others.
A Note on the Figures
The Philosophical Gourmet Report aggregates the judgments of a panel of field experts into a ranking of philosophy faculties. For the Overall Rankings in particular it is desirable to give users of the guide an accurate sense of the degree of consensus amongst respondents about the departments ranked in the survey. The Report has long done this numerically by reporting several measures of central tendency in the rankings. For this edition we provide additional graphical summaries of the ranking data. For each rank table (United States Top 50, Canada, Australia & New Zealand, and Overall English-Speaking Top 50) we provide three new views of the rating data. These are (1) Mean, Mode, and Median Plots, (2) Histograms of Votes by Department, and (3) Kernel Density Plots of Votes by Department. Each highlights a different aspect of the ranking data.
1. Mean, Mode, and Median Plots
These plots graphically reproduce information already contained in the rank tables. They show three measures of central tendency for each department, the mean (or average value), the mode (or most frequently occurring value), and the median (the middle, or 50th percentile value). In several cases, most commonly for the median and mode, some of these values are the same or very nearly the same and appear plotted on top of each other in the figures. The x-axis scale in each of these plots is the same, which means departments in different figures can be compared to one another.
2. Histograms of Votes
These large panel-plots show the distribution of votes for each department ranked. The figures present departments in rank order beginning in the top left corner reading from left to right. Each panel summarizes the distribution of votes for a department. The x-axis is the score awarded, and the y-axis is the count of votes received. The upper end of the y-axis range is determined by the largest number of votes cast for a department within that plot. This means that while departments can be compared to one other within any single figure, they are not comparable across different figures. To compare departments from different countries, consult the Overall English-speaking Top 50 figure.
3. Kernel Density Plots
These figures summarize the same information about the distribution of scores within and across departments that is presented in the histograms. Once again the aim is to represent the range of votes for each department, but this time in a way that can be quickly compared along the vertical axis. When the number of departments is large, histograms are less well suited to this. A kernel density can be thought of roughly as a continuous version of a histogram. It is a smoothed, nonparametric approximation of the underlying distribution of scores. It gives an indication of where scores are concentrated at particular values (visible as peaks in the distribution). The total shaded area of the kernels is proportional to the vote count for that department. The height of the peaks corresponds to the number of times a department was awarded about that score by respondents. Darker areas correspond to more votes. Higher-ranking departments do not just have higher scores on average, they are also rated more often. This is because respondents may choose to only vote for a few departments, and when they do this they usually choose to evaluate the higher-ranking departments. Hence higher-ranking departments may appear darker in color, and lower-ranking ones lighter, reflecting the fact that relatively fewer assessments are made about them. The absence of any clear peak in a department's distribution indicates a more uniform distribution of scores awarded. The wider the spread, the wider the range of votes cast. Comparing down the column also gives a good indication of how much the distribution of expert opinion about departments tends to overlap across departments, and at what points on the scale votes are concentrated for different departments. For more detailed information about the distribution of votes within departments, consult the histograms.
|